A very simple and easy to understand explanation of why climate change is REAL.

In what way?

 

They do not simply rely on satellites alone

 

Third time I've posted these:
Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS)

Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2)

Not some third party.

 

Yeah, I get it. The patent credibility of the ARGO project resides in its deployment of an ocean-wide temp sensor array, and you're trying to smear that credibility onto datasets that don't have a damn thing to do with that array.

Who the hell do you think you're kidding?

I mean data acquisition from >.1% of the thermal mass of the biosphere, at minimum.

What the hell's that got to do with data acquisition?

So what?

Yeah, and a bicycle's cheaper than a pickup truck. That hardly makes it preferable.

 

Well...actually...1913 is likely not the warmest it got there. Meteorologists have been calling that record bunk even before AGW became political decades ago. There's an ongoing official review of the record and it's likely the World Meteorological Organization is going to strike it from the record. And before you cry foul you need to read the academic literature on the topic. In a nutshell none of the 9 surrounding observers whose reputation is unquestioned could corroborate the 134F reported by an observers who had a history of incorrect reports. Then, on top of that it was actually theoretically impossible for the temperature to have hit 134F that day anyway.

You can read more about Burt's and Reid's research which has been submitted for peer review at Reid's blog. This is a very lengthy 6 part read.

http://stormbruiser.com/chase/2013/08/29/death-valleys-134f-record-temperature-study-part-one/

Or on Burt's blog.

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/w...th-valleys-134f-world-temperature-record.html

They aren't. It frequently gets above 120F at Death Valley on the hottest days of the year.

 

The point is that ARGO has more than a decade of overlap with other ocean stations. The ARGO data agrees with the other data within a reasonable margin of error. In other words, it's yet another line of evidence that supports what we already knew.

 

No, but why can't you address problems?

 

You say you knew, how did you already know?

 

Good one!

Also, I'm Canadian.

 

I have no agenda and do not care what they do about Death Valley. But right now, this is the official statement.

Now let's blaze to 2017. Still too early for 2018.

Here is what you must notice. Death Valley despite caterwauling by especially our Democrats or what other nations call their left wingers, Death Valley still remains remarkably cool vs the 1913 record heat there. The average for the month only eked out a .2 F higher figure than in 1917.

Why are you alarmed I pray you tell me?

I have no idea why you think average temps are so high in Death valley but this is what I found only using google.

 

Microcosm.

 

I enjoy studying deserts because they are already a very high heat location. They are protected from cooling breezes. Some are familiar with the canary in the mine. For me hot temperatures should occur where else, where it gets hot. And that is your canary in the mine.

 

That seems arbitrary. A 5000 ton thermometer is no better than a normal one, in many respects. What should matter is distribution. That and we can measure the amount of thermal energy leaving the Earth.

Why not both? I have problems with bicycles, pickup trucks, solar power, or nuclear power in principle. If you account for climate change and air pollution, fossil fuels are not really cheap. They just appear to be. Although really, renewables are economically more promising to investors now than nuclear power at this time. After the mess at Vogtle, I don’t expect to see another light water reactor project in the US.

 

Well, I'll probably be leaving this forum voluntarily as all my recent posts have been deleted.

 

Here is what bothers me so much on our automobile front. Ford announced it will not make their current fleet of automobiles past 2020. That is closing in quickly. Chrysler has some attractive products, but can they survive if things are so bad Ford is shutting out a good part of the market? What happens at GM?

What is good about small light cars. This is why they get better fuel mileage. Not that magic happened so now they can give you the heavy reliable car at 100 mpg, but that to get to 54 mpg it will take a carriage so light that Ford is giving up.

Sure you say, why not all drive the tiny VW beetle. It carries 4 people. Comfort still matters. Take my larger car. It has 4 doors on a very stylish body and a trunk large enough so when i go camping, I fill the trunk full and also must use the back seat to accomodate things i need in camping. A VW Bug never can handle that.

Passengers in my car ride in great comfort and the ride is good considering it has performance suspension. Had I then paid cash for the larger Cadillac, More than I have, It has a larger trunk and more passenger comfort due to the much softer ride. When you go to tiny cars, you do not get the comfort nor ride. A lose lose and Ford is leading the way to an era of pick up trucks with the small Mustang also offered. But for how long?

Professor Richard Muller has an excellent book that I own that goes into details on climate, all kinds of fuels and the plus and minus for them all.

 

No, the point is that you're trying to lend credibility to data from 1960 by connecting it with a dataset that isn't yet two decades old.

Of course it does. That's how confirmation bias works.

Dunno that I can help you with that misperception.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's precisely what I'm talking about. If we had a weather station for every 3°x3° cell on the surface of the planet - and we sure as hell didn't have that a century ago - we'd be blind to what's going on in 99.9% of the thermal mass of the biosphere.

Why not one or the other?

 

Well if it has been absolutely proven beyond all Reasonable Doubt then anybody that has doubt clearly isn't reasonable so there isn't any reason in discussing it with them.

Badging them with terms like denier idiot bigot whatever won't do anything to further the argument.

 

That is exactly what I'm doing. Are you suggesting that it's more credible to have one dataset in support of a claim over many?

It's a way to cross check the results of two or more independent groups. This concept is ubiquitous across all disciplines of science.

 

Yep. I was just digging this up. The 1938 warming trend was calculated from just 140-something weather stations worldwide. It was not a lot of sites. The more modern trends are based on way more data with overwhelmingly better global coverage. Yet the conclusion is still the same. Clearly. A good chunk of 20th century warming does not simply hinge on the distribution of sampling sites, as yguy suggested.

http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sme/PMU1...-2012F/notes/wk1/IPCC-AR4-WG1-figure1-3-l.png

 

Maybe the moderators have a particular bent which makes this forum unfair.

 

They deleted my post checking into something you said on your profile. Funny innit?

 

Since there is a reported hiatus, is there any wonder given they have continued to add to sites to collect data, especially where the satellites have such trouble getting accurate numbers?

 

No, I'm observing that temp data from 2000 can't validate temp data from 1960. As is self-evident to anyone with a lick of sense.

Do you have a lick of sense?

The concept is one thing, the application is another; and your misapplication of it shows you haven't got a clue about it.

Well of course it is. Had the same trend been calculated from 4 weather stations worldwide - even though only an idiot would consider that representative even of atmospheric temperatures - the conclusion would still be the same; because as far as you're concerned, the conclusion is paramount, and the basis is incidental.

 

I think you may be missing the bigger picture. These datasets that aggregate large amounts of data require processing to derive final metrics. When there is overlap between datasets it can be used as a way to cross check these processing techniques. It almost defies credulity to think you thought I meant an individual temperature measurement from 2000 can somehow be used to confirm an individual temperature measurement from 1960. That's not what I meant at all.

My apologies if that's how you read my post. You have to understand that I participate in conversations on forums with a special focus on the subject matter in which the audience understands concepts and jargon like these already. I do try to craft my posts with the audience in mind, but I don't always do it perfectly.

 

It absolutely defies credulity to claim the entirety of the ARGO dataset could confirm a single measurement from 1960, or the entirety of data from 1960.