Trump mocks teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg

Yes, it is. There need not be any "intent to deceive".

Cooking data is not quality control.

What is unethical is completely denying Statistical Mathematics and claiming that some "global mean temperature" has somehow been accurately measured.

Never said that. Try to keep up. I am okay with eliminating biases; I am not okay with cooking data.

Irrelevant to the LMS denying which is occurring.

Correct. And to figure out a "global mean temperature", measurements of absolute temperatures need to be taken. That involves thermometers. Those thermometers need to be uniformly spaced and simultaneously read in order to eliminate location and time biases. Statistical Mathematics must be followed.

**** input equals **** output. Continued LMS denial.

Yes, I do. Anomalies are used to keep "deniers" off of warmizombies' backs. It is an attempt at weasel-wording past the fact that they claim to "know" that Earth's temperature is increasing, yet they don't even know Earth's temperature, within any usable accuracy, in the first place.

My return question would be as follows... WTF is even being measured in an "anomaly", exactly? Also, how was this "standard temperature" determined (which is supposedly being deviated from)?

Continued LMS denial.

 

We have thermometers, correct, but we do not have near enough of them to know Earth's temperature within any usable accuracy... The margin of error is far too great.

 

You are working with a different definition than the rest of us then.

Actually...that is incorrect. Using a set of thermometers is certainly one of way of doing, but it's not the only way nor is it even the best way. As an exercise...which type of measurement is most effective for computing mean temperatures? Why? And what other types of measurements can be used to compute a mean temperature?

And while we're discussing thermometers I want you to start considering how thermometers actually work. Are they really measuring temperature or something else?

It would be ideal for temperature measurements to be performed on spatially and temporally homogeneous domains like what is done with reanalysis. But that's not a requirement. Biases can and are compensated for when homogeneity is not possible.

No one is "cooking data".

I was actually looking for a technical answer sans the snark.

The global mean surface temperature for August 2019 was 15.063±0.63. Note that ±0.63 is RMS so it is a Guassian distribution (ya know...a type of Bell curve).

This a great question. You should be asking more questions like these.

For a global mean temperature it is the temperature itself that is being measured. An anomaly is the deviation from a standard baseline value. ΔT = Tn - Tb where Tn is the nth measurement in a temporal sequence of measurements and Tb is the baseline.

Arbitrarily! That's the cool thing about it. It doesn't matter what Tb is at all. You could arbitrarily set it at any value you want. It literally makes no difference. For Berkeley Earth and climate science in general the most used convention is the mean temperature over the period 1951-1980, but other conventions are used. For example, CFSR products are generally delivered with 1981-2010 as the baseline.

As an exercise...which temperature scales are actually based on anomalies? What is the standard baseline used for each of these scales? Which scales are not based on the anomaly concept?

 

What do YOU think the margin of error is for global mean temperature measurements given what YOU understand about the way it is measured?

 

Would you mind discussing these "doom and gloom" predictions that you speak of? Where did you find them?

What about the prediction that the global mean temperature would increase? How do you score that prediction?

 

You liked post #854. Now maybe that was an accident. I don't know. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I know it's possible (even likely) that I've accidentally "liked" a post by virtue of clicking on the wrong thing that I would be mortified to discover later. This is your heads up.

 

So I liked a post, big deal. That is not me "mocking or attacking her", do you imagine she reads here?

 

Now you're being willfully obtuse. We'll start with and inconvenient truth. According to St. Algore, New York and Florida should have been under water years ago. The Himalayas are still covered with snow. There hasn't been a single GW prediction that has come true.
Read it and weep.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

 

All of those predictions are absolute strawmen that were not predicted by any climatologists.

And you ignored my post. Go to post #875.

 

unlikely.

more likely she wakes up one morning to realize shes 30 and the predictions have been pushed back to 2150, and nothing has changed.

 

Al Gore is not a scientist. New York and Florida were never predicted to be under water even 500 years from now nevermind "years ago". The Himalayas were not predicted to be snow free by now.

Can you find a "doom and gloom" prediction in any of the IPCC reports that you feel has been wrong? I'm not aware of any "doom and gloom" predictions nevermind any that have already been proven wrong. Now, there are predictions by the IPCC that have been really bad. Would you like to discuss those instead?

 

So you like it when someone else does the mocking?

 

Not enough data

Not enough data

Not enough data

Predictions based on insufficient data.

 

That too and we don't have enough data we only really started measuring temperature on a global scale about a hundred years ago and that's being generous but we know that there is a fluctuation in temperature of up to 6 degrees Celsius over a 450,000 year period.

 

Goalpost heavy?

 

Why do you believe the predicting warming and effects are unlikely?

 

....wait...what?

There is not enough data to say which year/decade/quarter century is the hottest on record? Why?

 

When will the spoiled brats do THEIR part?

 

You need a better argument, preferably one that doesn't self on a logical fallacy.

 

Not sure what you mean? If they want a better future, they need to stop being such casual consumers. Wheres the 'fallacy'? Do you disbelieve our consumer society releases carbon?

 

Accusing someone of hypocrisy is a logical fallacy. It is an ad hominem attack and you are intentionally ignoring the content of their argument and instead attacking the conduct of the person.

Moreover, the argument in favor of demanding action on climate change does not require that they act in some strict accordance with how you believe they should act if they were to, according to your interpretation, act consistent with their beliefs.

Put more simply, climate change is a real threat regardless of whether the person telling you that acts or doesnt act like an environmental saint. And it definitely does not benefit anyone to demand they live like a hermit.

 

She is easily mocked. Her message is ridiculous. The amount of memes produced by her cult like act is excellent!

My favorite.

 

Climate change is a serious threat regardless of whether you have the ethical fortitude necessary to avoid mocking a teenager for trying to educate and engage world leaders on that threat.

 

The inference here is that the Sun is causing the Earth to warm. The obvious question to you is then...how does declining solar output result in the acceleration of warming?

 

No, it's not. It's calling a spade a spade. If they were serious, their actions would match their words.