[championoftruth (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

and don't give me satellite measurements which are fake .

Is that another conspiracy theory?

It's more like corrupt Scientists driven by political agendas

Seems unlikely that climate scientists worldwide would all have the same political agenda.

[Bored chemist]

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.

You just used  a lot of words to say "The people who measure temperature are cleverer than I am- that's why they can do it but I couldn't".

[wolfekeeper]

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 burnt

2) 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.

[evan_au]

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_screen

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_sounding

Now, 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 measurements

So your reading of "the temperature" is a single point of data

I 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.

[alancalverd]

Seems unlikely that climate scientists worldwide would all have the same political agenda.

Have you ever met one with a different agenda? Hen's teeth come to mind.

[championoftruth (OP)]

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_screen

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_sounding

Now, 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 measurements

So your reading of "the temperature" is a single point of data

I 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.

i had no idea a persons head is a big as a planet for a cat scan.

even in a person the temperature varies from point to point.

your 3 d grid 10 km apart is useless as you can get rain hail sunshine storm in that 10 km grid and not predicted hence or taken into account

super computers dont prove anything. heard the saying garbage in garbage out?

the eastern side of the planet is very poorly measured due to low land mass and your so called satellites readings are untrustworthy due to processing by different people using different methods.

the readings are lop sided.

the so called alarmist changes have a name. its called WEATHER !

Oh look floods in Bangladesh...its climate change due to green house gases...no its happens every years. its called weather.

Also climate change researchers have admitted to fraud and making stuff by their own admission due to politics, bribery err i mean donations, economics, ideology and $cience.

[alancalverd]

Balloon measurements are very reliable but only cover the areas where balloons are regularly released, thus presenting pretty much the same problem as ground-level measurements. Historically, these were only of real importance to aviators so we have exceptionally good sets of 4-hourly measurements at airfields since 1930, with the qualifying rider that  until 1950, most of these were grass fields and since then the grass fields have mostly closed so much of the data is from concrete runways surrounded by urban buildings. Nevertheless if taken with an appropriate pinch of salt the numbers were accurate, if any detected trend was of dubious relevance.

From 1970 we have had increasingly credible satellite measurements, with just one or two mitigating factors: "corrections" are published from time to time, and always mysteriously tending to confirm the hypothesis of increasing global mean temperature.

Any estimate of global mean temperature before 1911 is suspect as nobody had actually reached the poles or made any reliable measurements above about 85 deg latitude, and I am unaware of any useful measurements of the average surface temperature of the Pacific ocean before 1970.

So a degree of scepticism  is warranted in this area. There is a lot of data but the data points are not necessarily comparable. 

Some things are indubitably true.
The annual average temperature in the UK and Hawaii has indeed increased fairly steadily throughout the last 75 years.
The average concentration of carbon dioxide, pretty well wherever it is measured, has also increased.
According to ice core data, the correlation between global temperature and carbon dioxide concentration has been fairly consistent for at least the last 500,000 years
The natural cycle (you can't blame humans for anything that happened more than 50,000 years ago!) is about 100,000 years and due for a rapid (12 degrees in about 2000 years) increase peaking about now, followed some time in the next 200 - 500 years by a slow decline of about 12 degrees in 100,000 years.
Retreating glaciers tell us that it was warmer 500 years ago than now.

So much for observation. The difficulty is trying to explain it all whilst retaining any degree of scientific credibility.

[Origin]

Have you ever met one with a different agenda?

Maybe it's not an agenda, maybe the scientists are going off of data.  It seems odd to me that a moderator on a science site would think that essentially all the scientists in a field are lying.  The other obvious possibility is that you have an agenda.

[Origin]

even in a person the temperature varies from point to point

You have an opinion that is counter to the opinion of the experts in the field.  Your amateur opinion can safely be ignored.

[alancalverd]

I listened to an interview with supercomputing people from the European weather forecasting office.

Within living memory I retrieved a fellow glider pilot who had completely misread the weather and fallen down in a soggy field instead of cruising around southern England in bright sunshine. During the traditional pub supper awarded to retrieve crews, I said "Aren't you a director of the European Weather Centre?" "Yes" came the reply "the finance director".

[alancalverd]

You have an opinion that is counter to the opinion of the experts in the field.  Your amateur opinion can safely be ignored.

Delete "safely".
It will certainly be ignored by those whose careers depend on proclaiming it wrong, but the fate of the human species is more important than that.   

[alancalverd]

The 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.

[championoftruth (OP)]

even in a person the temperature varies from point to point

You have an opinion that is counter to the opinion of the experts in the field.  Your amateur opinion can safely be ignored.

i can get an expert and as long as i pay his salary he will bark exactly as i order him to.

 rent a experts are dime a dozen as the last 3 years have shown.

[championoftruth (OP)]

The 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.

Climate change fanatics. Their Messiah is the ventriloquists dummy... Greata Thighburg.

She and her fanatics refuses to go to China/India/SE Asia which are biggest polluters.

[paul cotter]

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.

[Bored chemist]

The really stupid part of the idea that scientists can be "bought" is how badly paid most of us are.

[Petrochemicals]

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 burnt

2) 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.

But the op is whether these readings can be trusted, not what are the readings. In the case of temperature this one can, as it accepts that the margin of error is wide.
2000_years_with_error_v2.png (94.78 kB . 800x600 - viewed 3625 times)

I my opinion yes they can be trusted, the planet is warming, in the 12th century rivers where freezing over during the winter, during the 1600 they where still freezing over, dickens wrote about the tail end of this cool period.

Conversely people will argue that the little ice age was localised, but in that case I disagree, you cannot have part of a system that is cooling whilst still claiming the same temperature for the whole.

It would be very easy to argue that this warming period is anommolous. But the trend is that we are getting warmer over the last 10000years, if we were not I would be very very very concerned as temperatures rise slowly but drop very fast.

[championoftruth (OP)]

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.

You have this integrity but if were told say this and do that or you fired or twitter de platformed what would you do?

The last 3 years have demonstrated how money makes liars of people. Why has phizer have a thousand lobbyists in Washinton and dishing out election 'donations'?

[championoftruth (OP)]

The really stupid part of the idea that scientists can be "bought" is how badly paid most of us are.

Exactly and because you are badly paid you are easier to use and abuse and manipulate into saying what the paymasters want you to say.