0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
and don't give me satellite measurements which are fake .
It's more like corrupt Scientists driven by political agendas
As someone with a Physics degree who works in commercial HVAC control, temperature is NOT a simple thing to measure ACCURATELY. Besides the usual things like calibration of your sensors (and what method they use that can affect their accuracy across ranges of temperatures), temperature is not a static/homogeneous thing.Even in a small, closed system with lots of circulation and control who's INTENT is to homogenize it (like a room with AC), there are gradients and fluctuations over time, up to several degrees, across that space (even when a space is "satisfied" and no active heating or cooling is going on). So your reading of "the temperature" is a single point of data is just that (which is also why location of your thermostat is critical to proper operation of the system).Knowing this, I have always been extremely skeptical of any measurement of "the temperature" of the Earth's atmosphere or land seas or land. It's totally fake. You cannot convince me that thousands of temperature sensors across the globe represent reality in any scientifically meaningful way:1. Calibration is SO critical and something that can be done wrong very easy. Standards have changed and you are talking about countless ones done by countless entities that probably have NO true verification method other than their certificates that mean bunk. MAYBE if all sensors went through the same place with the same standard we might mitigate some variables there but they do not.2. These sensors have varied in location AND quantity of the years of record. If one can't see the obvious problems with this alone...3. Not enough data points. The average space between sensors is impossibly big. Way too much unmeasured data in between. Temp gradient and changes can be wildly different between points which simply means you fail to capture the full picture of what is going on, regardless of any math models are used to "fix" that problem (estimations).By different people/teams.These problems are sufficient, imo, to cause error in the data sets greater than the numbers we are concerned with (global temp changes of a few degrees).Also most sensors are in the west with the Pacific largely bereft and don't give me satellite measurements which are fake .How can you tell the temperature at 400 meters and 800 meters and 1600 meters or any value at height X if your looking from above or even sideways? It's more like corrupt Scientists driven by political agendas waving magic wands of theories and man made math to attempt to have certainty where no certainty is possible (right now).Perhaps in the future they will, but right now the data set is a highly curated set of garbage (a polished turd). Also Earth is a very dynamic Three Dimensional object 8000 miles across and anyone claiming to measure the temperature is a liar or delusional. 3D-Remember.
How can you tell the temperature at 400 meters and 800 meters and 1600 meters
So your reading of "the temperature" is a single point of data
Seems unlikely that climate scientists worldwide would all have the same political agenda.
I agree that measuring temperature is not easy.That's why meteorologists have a standardised set of measurement equipment and configuration that measure the weather at many points around the globe. These have known inaccuracies - but by averaging over a decade or more, you can detect changed in the climate which are less than the daily temperature variation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevenson_screenQuote from: How can you tell the temperature at 400 meters and 800 meters and 1600 meters Traditionally, this was done with weather balloons (often launched from airports), carrying instruments to measure temperature, pressure and altitude.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_soundingNow, satellites can look from space through the atmosphere.- By taking measurements from many different angles, they can reconstruct the atmospheric temperature profile in 3 dimensions- This is basically the same technique used to create CAT scans - are you saying CAT scans are fake, too?- With ongoing weather balloon measurements at known locations and times providing the "ground truth" to calibrate the satellite measurementsQuoteSo your reading of "the temperature" is a single point of dataI listened to an interview with supercomputing people from the European weather forecasting office.- They continuously take in data from many different sources, on different grid scales and levels of accuracy.- They spend about 60% of their supercomputer power aligning this flood of data, to determine exactly what the weather is now, before they even start extrapolating to a 2-week weather forecast.- They end up with a three-dimensional grid of temperature across Europe, on something like a 10km horizontal grid (and finer vertical grid) with known accuracy. - Any errors in the measurement result in rapid divergence of the actual weather from the predicted weather.- They continually analyse the predictive accuracy of their models, refining their measurement alignment and prediction algorithms. This process identifies any measurement devices which are out of specification.
Have you ever met one with a different agenda?
even in a person the temperature varies from point to point
I listened to an interview with supercomputing people from the European weather forecasting office.
You have an opinion that is counter to the opinion of the experts in the field. Your amateur opinion can safely be ignored.
The other obvious possibility is that you have an agenda.
Quote from: championoftruth on 05/10/2022 17:59:04even in a person the temperature varies from point to pointYou have an opinion that is counter to the opinion of the experts in the field. Your amateur opinion can safely be ignored.
Quote from: Origin on 05/10/2022 18:10:40The other obvious possibility is that you have an agenda.No, I've just never met a climate scientist who could explain the data without losing his/her temper and calling me a denier, as if questioning a dodgy hypothesis was somehow a sin against papal authority. It's quite a normal response to a scientific question, as is yours.
Look:1) CO2 has gone above 400 ppm in the first time in the whole of human history and this has been traced to being caused by fossil fuels being burnt2) we've had 8 of the 10 hottest years in recorded history in the last ten years. That cannot happen by chance.3) California and Australia were both on fire.It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when climate change is significant enough that even meteorologists can easily see it in their data, that it's very, very, very real.
I find the remark about "rent an expert" offensive. Not everyone can be bought, by a long shot. I consider myself relatively expert in lv and mv grid protection systems having worked in this area for 20 years up to my recent retirement, though others may disagree. I will not be bought short of someone putting a gun to my head, for any amount. I do not claim to be a particularly virtuous person, just a person with integrity, along with many shortcomings.
The really stupid part of the idea that scientists can be "bought" is how badly paid most of us are.