Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
If only it was a matter of a single temperature at one location at a specific point in time...there are of course error-related issues around combining data, land and sea surface data, averaging data, and that's before we get anywhere near missing surface data and the substitution farce - or the Karl buoy-to-ship-intake gimmick.
UAH LTT isn't homogeneous but more than gridded surface data which is in any case a lost cause.
The last time I looked, global surface temperature data comes with a claim of +/- 0.07 deg C (at the 95% confidence level) with the latest UAH LTT dataset at +/- 0.04 deg C for the very modest decadal trend of +0.114 deg C.
No causality is attributable to humans in any of the above.
Back to the lost cause near-surface gridded data. There are various sources of error in near-surface global mean temperature measures derived from gridded data, these include:
Instrumental Error - for individual measures depending on the instrument, MMTS sensor observations are unable to discriminate ± 0.2 deg C changes (these are the tubes on a pole situated near aircon outlets, chimneys, airport tarmac and car parks)
Station Error - the uncertainty of individual station anomalies (how AGW works, badly)
Sampling Error - the uncertainty in a gridbox mean caused by estimating the mean from a small number of point values
Bias Error - the uncertainty in large-scale temperatures caused by changes in measurement methods
Blending Data - for coastal areas, using arbitrary coefficients for LAT and SST
Additional Sources of uncertainty exist e.g. systematic error in the self-heating of powered sensors.
UAH LTT is the best indicator we have atm.
UAH LTT isn't homogeneous but more than gridded surface data which is in any case a lost cause.
The last time I looked, global surface temperature data comes with a claim of +/- 0.07 deg C (at the 95% confidence level) with the latest UAH LTT dataset at +/- 0.04 deg C for the very modest decadal trend of +0.114 deg C.
No causality is attributable to humans in any of the above.
Back to the lost cause near-surface gridded data. There are various sources of error in near-surface global mean temperature measures derived from gridded data, these include:
Instrumental Error - for individual measures depending on the instrument, MMTS sensor observations are unable to discriminate ± 0.2 deg C changes (these are the tubes on a pole situated near aircon outlets, chimneys, airport tarmac and car parks)
Station Error - the uncertainty of individual station anomalies (how AGW works, badly)
Sampling Error - the uncertainty in a gridbox mean caused by estimating the mean from a small number of point values
Bias Error - the uncertainty in large-scale temperatures caused by changes in measurement methods
Blending Data - for coastal areas, using arbitrary coefficients for LAT and SST
Additional Sources of uncertainty exist e.g. systematic error in the self-heating of powered sensors.
UAH LTT is the best indicator we have atm.
Edited by turbobloke on Friday 6th January 11:38
PRTVR said:
MikeyC said:
johnfm said:
Are they really capacble of measuring temp (land temps and sea temps) to a +- 0.1 degree accuracy?
Seems unlikely to me.
I have a cheap consumer device infront of me which measures temperature to 2 decimal placesSeems unlikely to me.
It also does pressure and can detect differences in height changes of approx 6 inches (use them to keep drone at constant altitude)
I'm sure there are professional versions which after careful calibration can easily do so
as you say, locations have changed slowly over time for many reasons and really, the locations *should* have been moved to adjacent locations to counter this
as to working out the average, that's something I've always wondered as there's so many different ways (eg: min/max per day or every hour etc)
presumably there's a standard adopted by all
motco said:
I'd like to know how a few millimetres change in sea level is measurable when the sea bobs up and down all the time! 
if they can measure Gravity Waves, then anything's possible 
MikeyC said:
johnfm said:
Are they really capacble of measuring temp (land temps and sea temps) to a +- 0.1 degree accuracy?
Seems unlikely to me.
I have a cheap consumer device infront of me which measures temperature to 2 decimal placesSeems unlikely to me.
It also does pressure and can detect differences in height changes of approx 6 inches (use them to keep drone at constant altitude)
I'm sure there are professional versions which after careful calibration can easily do so
Take sea temps. They're looking at buoy temps nd ship water inlet temps - but at what depths? They are recording data down to 0.1 degree - but what is the variation in temp across a depth of sewater of, say 120 feet? (20 feet is just a random number - but at what depth is a ship inlet measurement being taken? At what depth is a buoy measurement taken? IS sea temp by satellite a measurement at the surface?
How are all these variations capable of being used down to 0.1 degree?
johnfm said:
MikeyC said:
johnfm said:
Are they really capacble of measuring temp (land temps and sea temps) to a +- 0.1 degree accuracy?
Seems unlikely to me.
I have a cheap consumer device infront of me which measures temperature to 2 decimal placesSeems unlikely to me.
It also does pressure and can detect differences in height changes of approx 6 inches (use them to keep drone at constant altitude)
I'm sure there are professional versions which after careful calibration can easily do so
Take sea temps. They're looking at buoy temps nd ship water inlet temps - but at what depths? They are recording data down to 0.1 degree - but what is the variation in temp across a depth of sewater of, say 120 feet? (20 feet is just a random number - but at what depth is a ship inlet measurement being taken? At what depth is a buoy measurement taken? IS sea temp by satellite a measurement at the surface?
How are all these variations capable of being used down to 0.1 degree?
as you say, temps are changing all the time and at all depths
I'm sure the experts in Climate 'Science' know this stuff, but there could be alot of 'finger in the air stuff' to get the 'correct' reading !
MikeyC said:
PRTVR said:
MikeyC said:
johnfm said:
Are they really capacble of measuring temp (land temps and sea temps) to a +- 0.1 degree accuracy?
Seems unlikely to me.
I have a cheap consumer device infront of me which measures temperature to 2 decimal placesSeems unlikely to me.
It also does pressure and can detect differences in height changes of approx 6 inches (use them to keep drone at constant altitude)
I'm sure there are professional versions which after careful calibration can easily do so
as you say, locations have changed slowly over time for many reasons and really, the locations *should* have been moved to adjacent locations to counter this
as to working out the average, that's something I've always wondered as there's so many different ways (eg: min/max per day or every hour etc)
presumably there's a standard adopted by all
motco said:
I'd like to know how a few millimetres change in sea level is measurable when the sea bobs up and down all the time!
if they can measure Gravity Waves, then anything's possible MikeyC said:
temps are changing all the time and at all depths
I'm sure the experts in Climate 'Science' know this stuff...
Really? There are several who lack relatively basic stats knowledge and understanding, hence the crud that - mysteriously - gets through peer review from time to time.I'm sure the experts in Climate 'Science' know this stuff...
statistician Briggs said:
The Four (Statistical) Errors in Mann et al’s “The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth”
Michael E. Mann and four others published the peer-reviewed paper “The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth” in Nature: Scientific Reports (DOI: 10.1038/srep19831). I shall call this authors of this paper “Mann” for ease. Mann concludes (emphasis original):
We find that individual record years and the observed runs of record-setting temperatures were extremely unlikely to have occurred in the absence of human-caused climate change, though not nearly as unlikely as press reports have suggested. These same record temperatures were, by contrast, quite likely to have occurred in the presence of anthropogenic climate forcing.
This is confused and, in part, in error, as I show below. I am anxious people understand that Mann’s errors are in no way unique or rare; indeed, they are banal and ubiquitous.
http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/Michael E. Mann and four others published the peer-reviewed paper “The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth” in Nature: Scientific Reports (DOI: 10.1038/srep19831). I shall call this authors of this paper “Mann” for ease. Mann concludes (emphasis original):
We find that individual record years and the observed runs of record-setting temperatures were extremely unlikely to have occurred in the absence of human-caused climate change, though not nearly as unlikely as press reports have suggested. These same record temperatures were, by contrast, quite likely to have occurred in the presence of anthropogenic climate forcing.
This is confused and, in part, in error, as I show below. I am anxious people understand that Mann’s errors are in no way unique or rare; indeed, they are banal and ubiquitous.
Sticking to the theme, for a really good
Upside Down Mann and the Peer-reviewed Literature:
https://climateaudit.org/2009/10/14/upside-side-do...
More Upside Down Mann:
https://climateaudit.org/2009/04/15/more-upside-do...
If you or anyone else is genuinely interested in seeing how Geographers and Geologists and Ecologists get on when applying stats within faith considerations, the three links above really are worth a slow read.
LongQ said:
durbster said:
If the public have no interest, why was it the third and fourth most read stories on the Washington Post yesterday:
Can you inform us about how the stories are selected and ranked?All news organisations (Breitbart excluded because it isn't one) are required to send their page view statistics to the UN. The UN then collude with NASA, the UEA, the Chinese Government and Prof. Brian Cox to decide how many extra views they'll add to a story if it contains information about climate science.
The UN then updates the original data and sends it back to the BBC/Washington Post/whoever, who have a dedicated team - led by David Attenborough - to update the top five stories accordingly. This process happens roughly every twenty minutes - although usually more often during an El Nino event.
That's why only gullible idiots believe the top five most read stories are based on simple page impressions. It's a good job I'm so super clever that I can see through their lies. I've sent my findings to WUWT, who will probably publish it.
durbster said:
LongQ said:
durbster said:
If the public have no interest, why was it the third and fourth most read stories on the Washington Post yesterday:
Can you inform us about how the stories are selected and ranked?All news organisations (Breitbart excluded because it isn't one) are required to send their page view statistics to the UN. The UN then collude with NASA, the UEA, the Chinese Government and Prof. Brian Cox to decide how many extra views they'll add to a story if it contains information about climate science.
The UN then updates the original data and sends it back to the BBC/Washington Post/whoever, who have a dedicated team - led by David Attenborough - to update the top five stories accordingly. This process happens roughly every twenty minutes - although usually more often during an El Nino event.
That's why only gullible idiots believe the top five most read stories are based on simple page impressions. It's a good job I'm so super clever that I can see through their lies. I've sent my findings to WUWT, who will probably publish it.
Nice to see you've cultivated a sense of humour, now try to control your rampant zeal and everyone will know you're no longer confused...
Now tell me the Beeb isn't biased !!
Huge Antarctic iceberg poised to break away
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3852...
An extract ;-
"The researchers say that this is a geographical and not a climate event. The rift has been present for decades, they say, but it has punched through at this particular time.
IT IS BELIEVED THAT CLIMATE WARMING HAS BROUGHT FORWARD THE LIKELY SEPARATION OF THE ICEBERG but the scientists say they have no direct evidence to support this."
Note insertion of a CC bit (in capitals) by the Beeb!!!!!
Huge Antarctic iceberg poised to break away
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3852...
An extract ;-
"The researchers say that this is a geographical and not a climate event. The rift has been present for decades, they say, but it has punched through at this particular time.
IT IS BELIEVED THAT CLIMATE WARMING HAS BROUGHT FORWARD THE LIKELY SEPARATION OF THE ICEBERG but the scientists say they have no direct evidence to support this."
Note insertion of a CC bit (in capitals) by the Beeb!!!!!
MikeyC said:
motco said:
They are seeing phlogiston surges in reality...
thats a new word for me Definition said:
Similar to Administratium, Bureaucratium is an element which has a negative half-life, becoming more massive and sluggish as time goes by.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff