Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You can't prove that. You have an incomplete data set.During July in Las Vegas there is always a +30°F temperature difference between the valley and the Charleston mountain range, for the elevation areas above 8500'.
You can't prove that. You have an incomplete data set.
But what would a suitable data set look like?During July in Las Vegas there is always a +30°F temperature difference between the valley and the Charleston mountain range, for the elevation areas above 8500'.
Temperature stations above the 30° latitudes for both hemispheres are lacking to state it gently.
The past and current data collection grids, and temperature calculations therefrom, are useless and products of over promoters of man's abilities.
Incomplete data bases (i.e. containing "missing data" from many parts of the earth), and any anomalies "identified" therefrom are not representive of Earths Global Temperature or Earths Total Energy Budget Change over time. Is that clear?
"Climate Scientists" would want us content to only accept temperature anomalies from sparse and incomplete data sets. In otherwords, the "missing data" is of no importance; what they present is good enough, even accurate for the whole world.
Who do these people think they are fooling? For man to think he can calculate the Earth's temperature, and summarize such from incomplete data sets, to derive one global temperature value point for the year 2014!!!
Again, who are are such trying to fool with such lofty claims?
.
The example of nearby elevation change that significantly impacts local geographic temperature exposes a major weakness in use of "grid" based collection data. Yes, how there will be major missing data within temperature databases!!
The temperatures in areas unaccounted for (i.e. missing data) produces inaccuracies when using incomplete data collections.
“We’re reluctant to come to terms with the fact that what we love and enjoy and what gives us a sense of who we are is also now bound up with the most unimaginable devastation,” says Lertzman. “When we don’t process the pain of that, that’s when we get stuck and can’t move forward.” Lertzman refers to this inability to mourn as “environmental melancholia,” and points to South Africa’s postapartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission as an example of how to effectively deal with this collective pain. “I’m not saying there should be one for climate or carbon, but there’s a lot to be said for providing a means for people to talk together about climate change, to make it socially acceptable to talk about it.”
Rosemary Randall, a trained psychotherapist, has organized something close to this. She runs the U.K.-based Carbon Conversations, a program that brings people together to talk in a group setting about ways of halving their personal carbon footprint. Writing in Aeon, an online magazine, Randall suggests that climate change is such a disturbing subject, that “like death, it can raise fears and anxieties that people feel have no place in polite conversation.” Randall acknowledges that while psychology and psychoanalysis aren’t the sole solutions to tackling climate change, “they do offer an important way of thinking about the problem.”
Lertzman says the mainstream climate-change community has been slow to register the value of psychology and social analysis in addressing global warming. “I think there’s a spark of some interest, but also a wariness of what this means, what it might look like,” she notes. Gifford says otherwise, however, explaining that he has never collaborated with other disciplines as much as he does now. “I may be a little biased because I’m invested in working in it, but in my view, climate change, and not mental health, is the biggest psychological problem we face today because it affects 100% of the global population.”
Despite the pain, shame, difficulty and minefield of other psychological barriers that we face in fully addressing climate change, both Lertzman and Gifford are still upbeat about our ability to face up to the challenge. “It’s patronizing to say that climate change is too big or abstract an issue for people to deal with,” says Lertzman. “There can’t be something about the human mind that stops us grappling with these issues given that so many people already are — maybe that’s what we should be focusing on instead.”
Why climate deniers cannot face the truth: and the fact that Heissonear keeps taunting the data with 'fear-mongers' etc shows he's probably prone to this himself!
The temperatures in areas unaccounted for (i.e. missing data) produces inaccuracies when using incomplete data collections.
.You haven't ACTUALLY specified which "areas" are "unaccounted for"; not in terms of percent but in terms of geographical areas. I think there will be a LOT of people in this thread who'd love to see that from you.
You don't appear to have engaged substantially with the many fact-filled replies given to you!You havent answered the thread question.
You're just blowing raspberries now by repeating your own presuppositions not supported by the peer-reviewed data everyone's been linking to!The CAGW Bandwagon group promoting CO2 induced Global Warming have not made clear to others their limitations and inaccuracies when stating and graphing their "Global Earth Temperature" values and charts.
Others have tried to 'detour' this by asking you how many temperature stations would satisfy you when measuring New York city's temperature: so how's that going?Others have tried to detour the issue by presenting "data sets" by weather agencies in graphed form to show "anomalies" - changes in temperature within these data sets over time - but such numbers ploted to the second decimal are from severely incomplete databases of "earth's global temperature" .
They're complete enough. The human race will be adding more and more sensors and sniffers into every nook and cranny of this planet. Everyone's mobile phone will soon be as powerful as a Star Trek Tri-corder. The question for you is when is enough data enough? Mate, the peer-reviewed agencies take the temperature stations seriously. Why are you somehow above the conclusions of Christians in climate science who are doing peer-reviewed work and valuing these data sets? Who are you really to snub their work? Why is your qualification in geology so superior to their qualifications in actual climate science?When we talk about Global Earth Temperature for a period of time it means Global Temperature for a period of time. Not calculations from severely incomplete databases.
I suppose you have some nearly impossible standard like a temperature station every square metre of the earth before you'll believe climate change? Who are you really fooling? It's yourself!Some then try to shift weight to the incomplete data sets like the calculated temperatures from them are near equivalent to claim accurate earth temperature change as a whole, accurate enough for the earth's global temperature, even to claim accuracy to within 0.1 °C. Who are they really fooling? It's themselves .
You feel too highly of yourself and what you can do before the masses of people actually qualified in this subject! Unless you're a climatologist, I don't really care about your 'opinion' but the peer-reviewed science coming out of climate labs (where many climatologists are Christians NOT engaged in some tinfoil hat paranoid conspiracy of yours!)Some think too highly of themselves and what they can do and claim before the masses.
Yeah, gotta watch those scientific groups! They might be measuring real world data or something! In just 15 years you'll hear people asking what they're going to call Glacier National park now that it doesn't have any glaciers in it!And others cannot make rational observations of nature and measurement methods themselves and fall prey to the claims of others, even from media and scientific groups.
WRONG! The fundamental evidence of CO2 induced Global Warming is FIRST OF ALL UNDERSTANDING CO2! I thought that was self-evident! Read up on Joseph Fourier and how he realised that the Earth should be a LOT colder but for greenhouse gases. Read up on Fourier devices, named after him. Read up on the Radiative Forcing Equation which basically counts how much energy is trapped with different CO2 values. Get over your petty statistical games with temperature data sets, and do some reading on real physics in the real world of CO2 and how it traps heat!The fundamental evidence of CO2 induced Global Warming is first knowing Global Surface Temperature values, either per day, month, and/or year. But no one has or can give such data.
They are Global Surface Temperature data, but just not 'good enough' for you. Why don't you tell us all what level of 'completeness' would be good enough for you, and justify why? Why not stop flapping your gums at us and try publishing a peer-reviewed article in a climate journal about the incompleteness of temperature data? Maybe then you'll realise that this is not a game and you need to RESPECT peer-review and realise where you are so wrong.Once again, temperature statements from incomplete data sets are not Global Surface Temperature data, and particularly within 0.1 °C accuracy , much less 0.01 °C accuracy .
Tell me, if you repeat it 3 times and click your Ruby Slippers together does it make it true?Incomplete data sets do not capture the Earth's Atmospheric Energy and the Atmospheric Energy Change that occurs over time, nor the one parameter to express that Atmospheric Energy, that being earths surface temperature.
The below repost has not been addressed, which summarizes the dilemma to "incomplete and inaccurate numbers about earth's global temperature over time".
Nobody has answered the thread question.
The CAGW Bandwagon group promoting CO2 induced Global Warming have not made clear to others their limitations and inaccuracies when stating and graphing their "Global Earth Temperature" values and charts.
Others have tried to detour the issue by presenting "data sets" by weather agencies in graphed form to show "anomalies" - changes in temperature within these data sets over time - but such numbers ploted to the second decimal are from severely incomplete databases of "earth's global temperature" .
When we talk about Global Earth Temperature for a period of time it means Global Temperature for a period of time. Not calculations from severely incomplete databases.
Some then try to shift weight to the incomplete data sets like the calculated temperatures from them are near equivalent to claim accurate earth temperature change as a whole, accurate enough for the earth's global temperature, even to claim accuracy to within 0.1 °C. Who are they really fooling? It's themselves .
Some think too highly of themselves and what they can do and claim before the masses.
And others cannot make rational observations of nature and measurement methods themselves and fall prey to the claims of others, even from media and scientific groups.
The fundamental evidence of CO2 induced Global Warming is first knowing Global Surface Temperature values, either per day, month, and/or year. But no one has or can give such data.
Once again, temperature statements from incomplete data sets are not Global Surface Temperature data, and particularly within 0.1 °C accuracy , much less 0.01 °C accuracy .
Incomplete data sets do not capture the Earth's Atmospheric Energy and the Atmospheric Energy Change that occurs over time, nor the one parameter to express that Atmospheric Energy, that being earths surface temperature.
.
The below repost has not been addressed, which summarizes the dilemma to "incomplete and inaccurate numbers about earth's global temperature over time".
Nobody has answered the thread question.
The CAGW Bandwagon group promoting CO2 induced Global Warming have not made clear to others their limitations and inaccuracies when stating and graphing their "Global Earth Temperature" values and charts.
Others have tried to detour the issue by presenting "data sets" by weather agencies in graphed form to show "anomalies" - changes in temperature within these data sets over time - but such numbers ploted to the second decimal are from severely incomplete databases of "earth's global temperature" .
When we talk about Global Earth Temperature for a period of time it means Global Temperature for a period of time. Not calculations from severely incomplete databases.
Some then try to shift weight to the incomplete data sets like the calculated temperatures from them are near equivalent to claim accurate earth temperature change as a whole, accurate enough for the earth's global temperature, even to claim accuracy to within 0.1 °C. Who are they really fooling? It's themselves .
Some think too highly of themselves and what they can do and claim before the masses.
And others cannot make rational observations of nature and measurement methods themselves and fall prey to the claims of others, even from media and scientific groups.
The fundamental evidence of CO2 induced Global Warming is first knowing Global Surface Temperature values, either per day, month, and/or year. But no one has or can give such data.
Once again, temperature statements from incomplete data sets are not Global Surface Temperature data, and particularly within 0.1 °C accuracy , much less 0.01 °C accuracy .
Incomplete data sets do not capture the Earth's Atmospheric Energy and the Atmospheric Energy Change that occurs over time, nor the one parameter to express that Atmospheric Energy, that being earths surface temperature.
.
Just to set the record straight since there is a major incorrect point here. Remember climate scientists do NOT PROVIDE A SINGLE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. They deal in
TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES
This is the GRIDDED AVERAGE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CURRENT TEMPERATURE AND THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR THAT REGION OVER AN ESTABLISHED LENGTH OF TIME.
Here's what NOAA says about Tempearture Anomalies:
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
You can also read up on the LINEAR REGRESSION AND UNCERTAINTY of the temperature trends on page 2SM-11 in THIS DOCUMENT here.
[serious];66894983 said:Can we tell the temperature of Topeka, Kansas with one weather station? Would you listen to the news saying, "It's 39 degrees in Topeka" and say, "Well, maybe on the corner of 6th and Lee, but what about 6 blocks away at Union and Ferris?"
[serious];66935609 said:But is it good enough for YOU?
Can we say that Seattle had a high of 48.1 yesterday? Where do you draw the line?
[serious];67015838 said:But what would a suitable data set look like?
How much data is "missing"? As I've asked before, can NYC have one high temp for a day or do we need a different temp for every borough? Every block? At what resolution can we begin to make inferences about year to year changes?
Shouting "Not Enough!!!" without ever specifying what "enough" would look like just looks like denialism.
[serious];67013033 said:How much data is "missing"? As I've asked before, can NYC have one high temp for a day or do we need a different temp for every borough? Every block? At what resolution can we begin to make inferences about year to year changes?
Shouting "Not Enough!!!" without ever specifying what "enough" would look like just looks like denialism.
[serious];67010412 said:Ha! that means rocks don't exist!
How many data points do we need? I asked before if you thought one data point could cover a city and you didn't really commit. Would you be fine saying that it was 75 degrees in Oklahoma City today? Can OKC have one temperature, or do we need multiple temperatures for a city that size in your mind?
Nobody has answered the thread question.
Posters still failing to acknowledge the errant inaccuracies in the Earth's Single Global Temperature stated for any given period of time.
Every location on earth is continuously changing temperature. Temperature over time is never static.
Posters still failing to acknowledge the errant inaccuracies in the Earth's Single Global Temperature stated for any given period of time.
It has been a dubious promotion, particularly with the major inaccuracy it contains.
Just to set the record straight since there is a major incorrect point here. Remember climate scientists do NOT PROVIDE A SINGLE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. They deal in
TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES
This is the GRIDDED AVERAGE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CURRENT TEMPERATURE AND THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR THAT REGION OVER AN ESTABLISHED LENGTH OF TIME.
Here's what NOAA says about Tempearture Anomalies:
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
You can also read up on the LINEAR REGRESSION AND UNCERTAINTY of the temperature trends on page 2SM-11 in THIS DOCUMENT here.
Really? think about the implication of such a silly requirement:Every location on earth is continuously changing temperature. Temperature over time is never static.
To pick one temperature value for one location is meaningless.
To pick one temperature for any "region", particularly if mountainous, would have error in total energy present, much less expressed as a single temperature point.
But on goes the dubious activity, faced by promoters or not.
Dubious repetition and clicking of ruby slippers together to make your dreams come true.1. Dubious defending of man's ambitious effort to reduce the temperature of the entire earth to a single temperature value for a period of time like the year 2014.
Dubious looking away from all the evidence (retreating ice caps and glaciers and ecosystems) of the massive amount of data PRESENT to convince you.2. Dubious defending (or looking away) of the massive amount of data MISSING to do such.
Ignore the tens of thousands of temperature stations and satellite readings to convince yourself there is 'nothing to see here'. Um, there is?3. Then to present computations from incomplete databases to the second decimal place for the earth for 2014.
What does this even mean? You're not being coherent about anything.Are the defenders coherent of the situation discussed?
Some media reporting missed the subtleties in the science. Blame the media, not the scientists or databases. They are reporting this to the media as accurately as they can, but we've seen reports showing 2014 to be within the margin of error for the hottest year on record.Show all again data graphed to the second decimal place which show 2014 was "the hottest year on record".
Hey, dude, you're the one relying on big tobacco scientists that are now defending big coal. Oh the irony!Do you understand dubious disinformation propagation?
All for making hyped claims.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?