Trump mocks teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg

It is available.

That is how it is done. No data is "cooked". This conspiracy you've concocted is entirely in your head.

What? That doesn't even make sense. We want the exact opposite to happen. We want multiple groups taking similar, but independent, measurements so that they can be cross checked and so that systematic biases can be uncovered. This is what is currently happening. I nor any scientists would accept any less. You shouldn't put all of your eggs in one basket either.

No they don't. Many groups have figured out how to homogenize non-uniform data into 2D (or even 3D) fields. It's done in many disciplines of science. Climate science does not have a monopoly on this technique nor did they invent it.

But it's all moot since reanalysis, being a unique kind of measuring technology, does take homogeneous and uniform measurements of the planet. And reanalysis confirms that the techniques used in conventional datasets are not introduce any egregious errors.

They are. All datasets that publish a global mean temperature use bias correction and other quality control procedures. Many datasets publish their results without this step in parallel for transparency and so that raw vs corrected can be compared.

They all do this.

They are all transparent about possible variances.

Why? Why must THAT be a requirement. That doesn't even make any sense. How would this even apply to...say...a reanalysis dataset?

No. They didn't. No has ever been able to demonstrate any egregious math error on their part. If you disagree then post a link to a peer reviewed publication describing the error and what they should have done to get the correct answer. You're using "nuh-uh" arguments with technical jargon to cast unjustified doubt. That may work with a lot a people on here, but not me because I too have a math background and demand evidence of such claim especially when the claim is made by some random guy on a forum that is claiming every single scientist on the planet is wrong. Hint...there a lot of people in the world in that are WAY smarter than you or I. You, perhaps more than the rest of us, could use a dose of humble pie.

Do you even know why I chose Berkeley Earth as dataset to focus on? If you're as smart as you say you are you'll know the answer to this question. There are few on this forum that would know why I did this.

 

You are trying (@iamanonman does an excellent job of addressing your requirements) to use an impossible standards of evidence as a justification for dismissing the conclusions of thousands of relevant experts.

Let's try to flip the script. Instead of you telling us why you do not believe the experts, tell us why we should believe you when you claim that the Earth is not warming.

 

But think how great it would be If deniers all died? That’s what you want. And deniers are all anti science and dumb so clearly their extinction would be a foregone conclusion. After this disruptive selection we could start over with a “fitter” gene pool. In 10,000,000 years or less, we’d be more advanced and all of nature would be safe from destructive humans.

But that won’t happen no matter how good it sounds to a real “progressive”. Instead people like me will continue to leverage the situation to our (yours and mine) advantage and if it ever gets “bad” enough to personally affect you, you will begin to help me. And we’ll all live happily (or I will at least) ever after.

 

What won't happen is people taking climate change deniers seriously. You people are lumped together with flat earthers. lol

 

Thermometers must be uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same authority. Removing that before-mentioned bias does not happen AFTER collecting data, it happens BEFORE collecting data. You don't put thermometers in the wrong place first, collect data, and then put them into the correct place afterwards. You just put them into the correct place to begin with.

Now, in order to cook data (to supposedly remove biasing factors), you are correct that there first needs to be RAW data to cook. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about removing biasing factors before RAW data is even taken...

 

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. In the case of Berkeley Earth, it is not available. They use cooked data instead.

My noting of the data being cooked is not a "conspiracy". Any 'adjustment', 'weighting', etc. after the collection of the RAW data is known as "cooking the data". Cooked data is not allowed in a statistical analysis; only RAW data is.

It's fine for different groups to take their own measurements. I have no issue with that. But if a statistical analysis is being done, there can't be all sorts of different calibrations included within the same analysis. There can't be measurements taken at all sorts of different times either. That's what I'm getting at there.

Yes, they do. Otherwise, there is location bias.

"Bias correction" is fudging with RAW data. The RAW data must be used.

Many of them don't.

Many of them aren't.

Because Statistical Mathematics requires it for any statistical analysis. Look up what a bell curve is.

Yes, they did.

I have, numerous times within this very thread.

Mathematics is not "peer review" nor is it a "publication". Math is defined by its axioms.

Already did that.

I've explained my position already.

I don't believe you.

Already provided.

Bulverism Fallacy. Now you are denying logic as well.

Strawman Argument Fallacy.
Argument By Repetition Fallacy.

I already told you what I claimed.

Correct, but irrelevant to this discussion.

Don't take my word for it; learn about statistical mathematics for yourself.

No idea, and it doesn't matter.

I never said I was smart. My intelligence level is irrelevant as well.

The reason why you chose Berkeley Earth is irrelevant.

 

Salamanders.

 

Nothing is impossible about anything that I laid out as my requirements. They are all taken directly from Statistical Mathematics.

Attempted Force of a Negative Proof Fallacy. The claim that the Earth is warming is YOUR claim. YOU need to support it. I need not do anything.

Strawman Argument Fallacy. I have made no such claim.

My position is that I have no idea whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature. (since it is not possible to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth).

 

We have invented thermometers a long time ago. Hilarious you claim we can still not measure the temperature of the earth. How can your views not be seen as some desperate attempt to deny climate change.

 

yeah... when called out,... that's all you got.

 

Called out for what? Not being scared like a whipped puppy?

 

I proved things. But when I ask you to prove things,... you're wimping out.

 

I have nothing to prove. You admitted to knowing about previous mass extinctions. You blew it.

 

Your only reference is mass extinction. That's where you blew it with your climate change denialism.

 

How many more do you want me to post?

There are hundreds of papers that say the same thing, but I chose those because they are quite recent.

I note that you are totally unable to refute those scientific papers, or the sources of those papers, which is another reason I selected them, because it is hard for science deniers like you to refute research published on Nature or by governments.

If you have scientific peer-reviewed articles to the contrary, do post them, otherwise your surrender is accepted.

 

Your claim was false. That’s all we need to know. You admitted it was false. Proving you wrong is not denying climate change. When are you going to start doing something about climate change? Are you a denier?

 

I sourced my things. You sourced nothing. Hence I am right, and you're the climate change denier.

 

You were my source.

What exactly does it do for you or the environment to call me a denier? This is really interesting to me. Virtue signaling? Some sort of defense mechanism? Whatever it is it’s fascinating.

 

No. That is most definitely not what "cooking the data" means. Cooking the data is in reference to the fraudulent manipulation of data with the intent to deceive.

Making necessary adjustments to measurements for the purposes of improving the accuracy of the measurement is called quality control.

Making a computation like a global mean temperature without first implementing some form of quality control is unethical especially if you don't notify your audience that you skipped this step.

What? In what world would you take a measurement and not correct for a known bias?

Serious question... do you work with instrumentation that has to be sent in to a laboratory periodically to get its calibration certificate renewed?

We're talking about computing a global mean temperature here. If given a homogeneous 2D field of measurements, like would be the case with reanalysis, you simply sum all of the measurements and then divide by the number of measurements. No statistical analysis is needed to perform this computation. Try it out yourself. It only takes a few lines of source code to process a GRIB file in this manner. What does require statistical analysis is computing confidence intervals and error margins. The biggest hurdle here is determining the RMS error of the individual measurements. As an exercise...how do you think this can be determined?

If given a non-uniform set of measurements, like what Berkeley Earth attempts to process, then you do have to homogenize them into a 2D field before you can compute the global mean temperature. This does introduce new sources of error that are different than the error of the individual sample. You can also easily introduce systematic biases this way. And although the homogenization techniques can range in complexity the computation of confidence intervals and error margins is more complex than it would be for reanalysis. Everyone already knows and understands this already. You haven't figured something out that someone hasn't known about for decades.

And yes. I know what a Bell curve is. Berkeley Earth computes an RMS error for each global mean temperature computation they perform whether it be monthly or annually. It is this Bell curve that forces them (and others that perform similar analysis) to publish rankings (like which year is the warmest) with probabilities attached to them instead of absolute rankings. Again...everyone already knows and understands this already. And again...you haven't figured something out that someone hasn't known about for decades.

By the way...do you know why temperature trends are typically expressed via anomalies instead of absolute temperatures?

It is relevant not because of the technical details, but because of your arrogant attitude. You see there were a bunch of people out there that had similar feelings as you (except without the arrogance). They weren't convinced that all the worlds leading experts dotted all of their I's and crossed all of their T's so they began yet another independent review of the data (ya know...because the dozen other attempts weren't enough). They were convinced, like you, that everyone had made a huge mistake and that either the planet wasn't warming (nevermind the other lines of evidence that says it is) and that the reason why everyone was getting roughly the same result within a reasonable margin of error was because they were either all making the exact same mistake (which in and of itself would be bizaare since they often employ wildly different techniques) or that it was simply an astonishing coincidence. And so it came as quite a shock to the skeptics out there when they dropped their bomb in 2012 and proclaimed that not did the world's leading experts not make egregious mistakes, but that their results showed that the planet was actually warming faster than had been previously though, albeit only slightly. This is why I focused on Berkeley Earth.

 

Yeah...scientists had already figured out the global mean temperature within 1C by the late 1800's. They even predicted the global mean temperature of the Moon without anyway of measuring the dark side and long before people went there. And today...not only do we measure the global mean temperature (now on an hourly basis) but we forecast its change like we do with local temperature changes several days in advance. Case in point...we already knew even before September began that the monthly mean would increase substantially due to the correctly forecasted and record breaking sudden stratospheric warming event that occurred. September was the warmest on record according to multiple datasets now and we predicted it before it happened. That's not bad for not being able to even measure the global mean temperature like what gfm7175 stubbornly holds onto.

 

I'm not a credible source

It is the endless disputing and that it's all rather normal what is going on.

 

I have no reason to believe you aren’t. We can all be misinformed or lack bits of knowledge. I’m here to find out how you process the information you have access to and what conclusions you come to by thinking it all through. I can google all I want, or reference text books of college courses, etc., etc. But that only allows me to come to my own conclusions. I like to hear how your interpretation differs. And if possible, why.

I’m not here for source wars. If that was all this was I could ask you for endless sources “proving” CO2 is released when fossil fuels are burned. Or sources “proving” global temperatures can even change at all. I’d much rather skip all that and hear your opinion. Arguing over things we agree on is boring.

But I’ve never claimed it’s “normal”. Quite the opposite. The only point we differ on at the end of the day is you are frightened of a warming climate and I am not.

 

Well I googled my things. You however proved nothing.

You did not debunk a thing.

Yeah. I guess a climate denialists would be that desperate.

Yeah. You're fine with destroying 1 million different species. When your grandchildren complain, you be giving them the finger.

 

I proved that you have a sense of humor and don’t form your own opinions. I proved you parrot those of others.

I proved the only defense you have for not having your own opinions is to misrepresent what others say.

I proved you have a different standard for debate and environmental stewardship for yourself than for your fellow man.

When subsequent generations of my family look back at my life, they will see someone who practiced what you preached. They will be thankful for the ability to live life to the fullest without fear. They will be prepared to make the most of their environment, even if die hard “environmentalists” never get off their bum and actually make a difference.

Your grandkids can remember you as the guy who googled a thing not in dispute and erroneously labeled a dude a climate change denier.