* Posts by fitzsubs

3 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Aug 2015

Vanished global warming may not return – UK Met Office

fitzsubs

You would be incorrect.

"In physics if you do an experiment and some of the results appear to be wrong, you would normally eliminate them, rather than adjust them to match your theory. You would then redo your experiment. In climate science, the technique seems to be to change the data to what you think it should probably be. Based on how you 'feel' about it."

You are quite incorrect. The larger part of the decision about how to handle outliers in raw data depends on the nature of the experiment. If you have all the time and money in the world and are conducting a controlled laboratory experiment then the choice may be to redo the experiments. Unfortunately, the Earth and it's environment isn't an ideal controlled experiment.

A second issue is that, in fact, the laboratory experiments definitively prove that the addition of GHG to the atmosphere raises temperature. The absorption spectrum of CO2, methane and other GHG are well established without any raw GMT data. CO2 and other GHG are identical in nature as they are in the lab.

A third issue is simply that the raw data does, in fact, prove that the global mean air and sea surface temperature has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution and the use of fossil fuels. And this increase is caused by CO2 and other GHG.

The goal of homogenization of the raw data is primarily to deal with the lack of controls in the weather stations. One of the largest issues is that weather stations are not nicely spaced about the globe. If you were measuring the temperature in your house, with one room containing two thermometers while others has only one, each room being of different sizes, simply taking the average of the raw data will not yield a precise and accurate mean. If each thermometer is of a different manufacture and construction, they are not likely to be all yielding the same number given the same conditions. All in all, the goal of homogenization is to achieve the most precise measure of GMT given the lack of laboratory control.

In a perfect and ideal world, you would be right. Unfortunately, in the real world, science has to deal with real data and doesn't have the luxury of simple re-running the experiment (the year 1959 has come and gone. Science can't rewind the clock.) or throwing out measurements because they aren't good enough (measuring a bucket of water hauled up over the side of a ship is not the same as measuring the temperature at the intake of the ships cooling system.)

In a perfect world, you would be right. Real scientists have to do real science in a real world.

'Sunspots drive climate change' theory is result of ancient error

fitzsubs

Re: Deniers?

Yeah, that's it, nobody thought to check the temperature anomaly against TSI. Doh!

Oh, wait, it has been. So have aerosols, methane, volcanic ash, ocean heat exchange, land use like deforestation, and every other factor that might even remotely affect the global mean temperature. And guess what...... GHGs are the only factors that have affected the century long trend of global mean temperatures. Not only that, but ocean heat exchange is the second strongest factor that has the greatest affect on global mean air and sea surface temperatures.

And even more enlightening, total solar irradiance is negatively correlated with global mean temperature anomaly. While the Sun does provide the energy that heats the Earth, while TSI was decreasing, CO2 and other GHGs were increasing and trapping more and more the energy that the Sun provides.

The problem is that in order to understand this requires either having an education in science and mathematics or simply accepting the analysis of credible professional scientists. Of course, this can be quite a conundrum because it requires some rudimentary level of science education to be able to read the material published by credible scientists. And lacking in even a rudimentary level of knowledge of science makes reading science literature an impossibility. So what is a person to do? Well, there is always the published positions scientific organizations that represent the larger body of scientists,like the American Institute of Physicists.

The problem still remains, having learned to read. Even then, you can get past that by having a friend read it to you or taking adult night courses.

So, all in all, there is no reason why you should not know the facts. Stupidity isn't an excuse.

Ergo, the term "denier".

fitzsubs

Re: Deniers?

@Mark 65

"At one time the bulk of scientists and, for that matter, the World's population actually believed the Earth to be flat. " - Mark 65

Oh, geez. Never in the history of man has anyone that could remotely be called a scientist every considered the Earth to be flat.

"Eratosthenes of Cyrene c. 276 BC[1] – c. 195/194 BC[2]) was a Greek mathematician, geographer, poet, astronomer, and music theorist. He was a man of learning, becoming the chief librarian at the Library of Alexandria. He invented the discipline of geography, including the terminology used today.

He is best known for being the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

There are deniers... then there are complete morons.