Trump mocks teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg

No, that's all wrong, It's "How dayyuhhh you"!

 

Funny but you've just described Trump perfectly.

 

Find me the data for the month of octobre of 1276BC please.

 

Once more, with feeling.

Accusing someone of hypocrisy is a logical fallacy. They are under zero obligation to act in accordance with how you believe they should act if they "truly" believed the contents of their message.

 

What fallacy?

 

You're still just referencing made up numbers... You can't have an anomaly of Earth's temperature unless you have actually measured Earth's temperature... You. need. to. know. Earth's. temperature. but. you. don't.

Concerning the ΔT = Tn - Tb equation... If Tn and Tb are both completely made up numbers (which they are), then ΔT is also a completely made up number. You're not determining anything regarding Earth's temperature because you have yet to actually measure it with any usable accuracy.

 

You either missed or think it is irrelevant the fact that I included the phrase "on record."

 

Accusing someone of hypocrisy is a logical fallacy. It attacks the person rather than the content of their message.

 

Nothing usable. I've personally experienced temperature variances of up to 20degF per MILE, so even having uniformly spaced thermometers for every sq mile of surface area, that still makes for a rather large margin of error.

 

No, it's not. Simply pointing out hypocrisy is not a fallacy.

Instead, the fallacy occurs whenever people use it as an attempt to divert criticism away from themselves. In other words, it becomes a fallacy whenever the accusation of hypocrisy is used as a diversionary tactic (ie, attempting to excuse one's own actions by way of diverting to someone else's actions).

 

But you don't even have global records today. What you have is non standard localized records for the major urban centers and none for most of the world. And before you mention satelites, they don't cover all of the world.

 

A) Satellites.
B) There are literally billions of temperature data points recorded every year, including from sensors placed throughout the countryside, throughout the oceans, and throughout the world.
C) Those data points are used for extremely important issues, like international shipping and military decisions, and are cross-checked and verified by dozens of groups. A lack of accuracy can literally result in the loss of life or millions in economic damage.
D) Satellites.

 

Duh.

Tb is an arbitrary number. Tn is an actual measurement. We know Tn to within about ±0.05 for conventional datasets. It's a bit more accurate for reanalysis. That's definitely usable accuracy.

That's not what I asked. I asked what do YOU think the accuracy of global mean temperature measurements are. The variance at a specific location at some cherry-picked time does not in anyway answer the question I asked.

BTW...since you brought it up. What is the standard deviation of local temperature measurements from a well represented global set of measurements over the course of 1 year?

As a courtesy I'll answer my own questions. The answer to this question is geopotential heights.

Because geopotential heights have significantly less spatial and temporal variability. You then plug the values into the hypsometric equation to get the mean temperature.

This is super cool. The answer is...most measurements can be used to compute a mean temperature. This includes but is not limited to wet bulb temperature, dewpoint, water vapor mixing ratio, equivalent potential temperature, wind vectors, geopotential heights, barometric pressure, etc. for the common measures. Then we have a microwave emissions, infrared emissions, and other radiation fluxes that can be exploited. And from here we go into really esoteric things like GPS radio occulations. The last is my favorite. With modern 3DVAR/4DVAR assimilation systems we take homogeneous temperature measurements by exploiting the global positioning system's radio occulations in the atmosphere. You can deny these model analysis systems any direct temperature measurement and they'll still be able to compute a global mean temperature with astonishing accuracy. And yet reanalysis does this will millions and even billions of observations every single day.

So we have RTDs, thermocouples, laser interferometers, thermopiles, and may more. Many thermometers are thermocouples which exploit the thermoelectric effect to generate a voltage. The device is actually measuring electricity directly and then uses a model (I know...gasp) to map the electrical signals to a temperature. RTDs are another common type of thermometer. They exploit the relationship between molecular kinetic energy and electrical resistance. Again...a model is used to map the electrical characteristics to a meaningful temperature. The point...thermometers don't actually directly measure temperature. They usually measure something else and then use a model to infer the temperature.

Fahrenheit is a good example. The scale is anomaly based. The arbitrarily chosen baseline is the freezing point of a salt brine solution.

 

No, the initial accusation of hypocrisy is also a logical fallacy. A rebuttal accusation of hypocrisy is a logical fallacy too.

For example, if I said, "It is raining outside and you should put on a coat because you could catch a cold" And you respond with, "You are not wearing a coat!" Did you address the content of my argument in any manner? No, you relied on a logical fallacy by accusing me of hypocrisy.

 

What? This isn't even remotely correct. We have many datasets that produce 3D snapshots of the entire atmosphere over the entire surface of the Earth multiple times per day. Many of these datasets are openly and freely available to you or anyone to download and utilize.

 

Satellites don't cover the whole surface of the world.
Satellite don't take their reading all at the same time.
Satellite aren't a panacea
C) bullschnitzle. You don't need pinpoint accuracy for shipping. GPS isn't that precise and needs help from terrestrial broadcast for accuracy and further more, like all satellite based system, doesn't cover all of the globe and since I work in an industry that use it extensivelly I know what I'm talking about. And a whole dozen... wow.

You know as much about this subject as you know about laws... I wonder what Jussie has to say about climate change?

 

No you don't. What you have is an extrapolation from partial coverage of the globe from different non synchronized system.

 

No, making note of someone's hypocrisy is not a fallacy in and of itself. It CAN be a fallacy per what I described in my prior comment.

Yup, that's a fallacy. One is using the accusation of hypocrisy to divert away from the argument that one could catch a cold if they don't wear a coat.

 

First, that's not correct.

Second, that's moot anyway because modern data assimilation systems do not require the coverage to be complete nor that the observations be simultaneous.

Third, even the conventional datasets that use less sophisticated techniques and which do employ partial global coverage and non synchronized readings still produce monthly global mean temperature measurements that are within ±0.05C.

 

Kind of laughable that they claim the uncertainty is .27F for temperatures 140 years ago when the error for taking temperatures was 1 to 0.5 degrees just for the ground station error in recording and for ocean air temperatures which are extrapolated from water temperatures used buckets and engine intake temperatures never designed for science and never calibrated. Of course what they are doing is running it through a computer model since there is no such thing as a global temperature. Most past stations 140 years ago were in the US. Currently the network in the US build for climate science, the USCRN, shows no statistical change for two decades.

To give an idea how silly it can get, last year one the hottest places on earth was in Africa in an area with no temperature recording stations.

 

He wasn't talking about geolocation via GPS. But since you brought it up and because I hinted at it above did you know that the GPS radio signals help improve the accuracy of global mean temperature measurements? In fact, GPS radio occultations can even help improve weather forecasts.

 

The +0.05C figure is post WWII. The error is about +0.10C around 1900 and closer to +0.20C around 1850.

Sure, but remember how error is propagated when computing means. You use the error of the formula E=S/sqrt(N) where S is the known RMS error of individual measurements (or "standard" error if you let the data self describe) and N is the number of measurements. For example, if stations were homogeneously spaced (they weren't and still aren't) and there were 1000 of them with an RMS error 1C then E = 1/sqrt(1000) = 0.03C. However, there are other sources of error unrelated to the actual instrument that lead to > 0.10C overall error. The point...1C of instrument error more than adequate.

No, that's not correct. See the ERSST publications for information bucket and engine intake biases. Not only has this been considered but these techniques have been calibrated using nearby buoys.

Yes. It is physically possible to compute a mean from a scalar 2D field. It is even done without utilizing GCM models (though GCM models do assist and improve upon the process in some datasets) The global mean temperature is the computation of the mean of a 2D scalar field. Climate scientists did not invent this technique, nor do they have a monopoly on it, nor are they even remotely close to be the most prolific users of this technique. I'd be willing to bet you can think of dozen examples of where this is used off the top of your head in less than a minute.

That's actually not true. USCRN is consistent with the wider US observing network. And, if anything, it actually suggests the warming is MORE than what the wider observing network suggests. See here.

But let's assume the opposite for a moment. First, how can you make a claim that USCRN shows no statistical change if you think there's no such thing as a mean temperature? Second, assuming you can get past the mean temperature bit how do you suppose the US is an adequate proxy for the globe as a whole?

Are you sure about that?

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/stdata/v3.temperature.inv.txt

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927814000045

 

Thing is, whatever you do, or whatever mesure you manage to force us to do to combat that climate change boogeyman, you won't be able to change anything in the long run and the earth will still comes to an end when our sun runs out of fuel. Nothing you can do about that.

Also the human race isn't special. If we die off tomorrow, the planet will never take notice. The earth is a ball of minerals, it doesn't care and don't need to be "saved". You're savior complex is missplaced. You want to help? Help those who are presently living, not some future generation that won't even care for what you may have done, just like the millenials don't care about those who died fighting 70 years ago for their right to be total jerkoff today.

You want to fight pollution? Go fight China, India and other hell hole who are the one doing the worst of it. I sure won't deprive myself of the comfort of modern living for the sake of some chinese or indian playing catchup with the modern world.

 

The Sun won't run out of fuel for a billion years.

Yes, we can make changes for the better. We can do this by reducing carbon emissions. The best way to do this is to promote alternative energy sources. This needs to be done anyway because 1) fossil fuels will run out eventually anyway and 2) because they represent a huge socioeconomic risk. We should promote sustainable energy sources that reduce socioeconomic risks.

Well I happen to think the Earth is a gift to humanity that should be preserved. We should be good stewards of the planet.

So you're okay with redistributing wealth from future generations to fund your own? You're okay with harming the environment in the process and then forcing your kids to pay for it?

I'm not okay with this. But I guess that's just me...

 

How can you calibrate a temperature sensor with a bouy after the fact if you have no clue what error the sensor reading is? To calibrate means you calibrate the sensor itself based on a standard, which is not done for those non-scientific instruments.