“Better data”? Hmmmmmm… so are you saying previous data could be lower quality? Inconsistent? Marginal? erroneous? Heck lets just pool all historical data together, even with it’s clear inconsistencies, and cast judgement.
Absolute madness. That approach is fundamentally flawed and is being used to underpin anthropogenic climate change.
Now, that IS a fact.
How is that sun dial on your wrist
So your recommended approach would be to chuck out every single data point we have that was not measured with the most precise and up-to-date methods we have available today? In which case, the sum knowledge we have about climate history is … nothing.
We, alas, do not have the option of jumping in a ■■■■■■■ time machine and scattering weather satellites across the past million years. So we have to make do with the best info we have available. And that info, while it does contain flawed and incomplete mesurments, also includes knowledge of what previous methods of temperature measurement were and what their weaknesses were, so we are able to compensate for those weaknesses in our analysis in order to get a more accurate picture of the past.
And no,this is only one approach that underpins the science of climate change. The other major underpinning is the actual knowledge of how CO2 (and other greenhouses gases) behave with respect to infrared radiation. This is physics that has been utterly uncontroversial for 120 years, and it leads inevitably the the inescapable conclusion that increased co2 etc in the atmosphere lead to increased temperature. And this was all well understood and settled around 1900. If you have anything resembling an explanation as to why these extremely basic scientific principles are wrong, well,book your ticket to Stockholm where there’s a nobel prize with your name on it cos your transcendent brilliance will shake up physics more than einstein ever dreamed.
It’s basic mathematics.
The data is inconsistent, therefore pooling provides a very low accuracy. That’s uncertainty. Acknowledge it. That’s all. Accuracy is poor. Don’t peddle high fidelity temperature numbers concluded from such low pedigree pooled data. They are 100% BS, by definition.
Accept thats the reason why people are not swallowing this tripe.
Garbage.
You never have perfect data or perfect observations. That’s basic science, and that’s the absolute first thing you learn in any uni science course. There are always uncertainties and error margins in any measured data set, and I bet those error margins were faithfully recorded in the original NASA report that this tinfoil hatter nicked the graphs from.
And once again, if you don’t use this imperfect historical data, what the hell do you use?
Actually, I can answer that. If you don’t use this imperfect historical data all we have to rely on is our theoretical and lab-tested knowledge of the behaviour of air with differing CO2 concentrations under infrared radiation. Which, of course, agree with the science of AGW.
NASA faked the moon landing off course their climate data is fake!
You missed my point. You USE the data. You just don’t conclude with any certainty. The message peddled concludes with certainty and that’s 100% “garbage”.
Yay! CC is garbage.
Now the ice can stop melting & the coral stop bleaching.
What a relief.
Pretty sure science concluded there was no certainty in anything ages ago. Quantum mechanics, Schrödinger’s cat etc. The fact nothing is 100% certain ain’t news to any decent scientist.
Exactly what I said. You use the data, you are open about the magnitude of your uncertainties. Exactly like NASA is - check out here, where it says that the uncertainty in recent years is around 0.05 degrees and the older (~100 years ago) records have an uncertainty around 0.1 degrees. And for a bonus, on the same page they link you to ALL the raw data and the calculation code they use to work all this out. Anyone who has any disagreements with how NASA does their analysis - well, the onus is on them to point out EXACTLY what calculations NASA is doing that are incorrect or inaccurate.
This is a prime case of put up or shut up. The allegations against NASA are that either they’ve been deliberately fraudulent (as sorfed’s link claims, rather loopily) or that they’ve been insufficiently specific about their uncertainty bounds, as you claim. Well, NASA is giving EVERYONE theie exact methodology for calculating this stuff. so who’s going to actually point out concrete things they’ve gotten wrong? Or is making nebulous insinuations all there is?
It’s not happening.
The data isn’t 100% certain.
It’s not us.
Renewable energy is the devil.
It’s not that bad.
Keep burning the black stuff.
Don’t change anything.
Think of the poor coal barons.
And you are not curious about why they found it necessary to change it, much less why they changed it twice in 8 years and even more so why they changed it to increase the warming. Of all the changes to past temperatures the only time they reduce temperatures is in the distant past so as to increase the long term trend.
Is GISS so incompetent that they stuffed up the first “adjustment” they had to double up, OR, was the pause so great and their climate models so inaccurate and found wanting that they had to cheat?
Curious?
Not particularly. Cos I knew most of this already, and what I didn’t know, i was quickly able to find out because all this is very, very public. I follow news about AGW (obviously) and I’d known about the new weather stations etc for years. The satellite data recalibration stuff I wasn’t familiar with, but it’s not really a surprise. This has all been public knowledge for a long, long time. The satellite calibration stuff is nearly 15 years old for ■■■■’s sake! There have been journal papers published, there have been articles even in the regular media. And at every stage, NASA etc have been completely open about what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. I mean, all the raw data and all the code that they use to process the raw data is all publicly available, right now. You can download them and run the same calculations and check that your results are the same as theirs. If NASA were ‘cheating’, anyone could find out simply by reading the code and looking for the bit which says “temperatureToGoIntoTheReport = realTemperature + fakeIncreaseAmountToPreserveTheGreatClimateHoaxAndDestroyCapitalismBwahahahahaaaa”
Where are the SPECIFIC complaints about what NASA is doing? What EXACTLY are they supposed to be doing incorrectly, or exactly what false assumptions are they working under? HOW exactly are they ‘cheating’? Which parameters EXACTLY are they ‘manipulating’ to generate false results? The code is there, the data is there. Everything that is required to prove they’re fudging numbers is freely available, yet nobody has been able to point at anything specific in the code and say '‘THERE it is!’
What’s more, and this is the big one- nobody in the AGW denialist camp has even tried. The link you originally posted just automatically assumed that the changes in temperature history were due to deliberate calculated fraud, without even slightly investigating or discussing what NASAs explanation for it was (even though this explanation has been available for a long long time) nor how the supposed fraud took place. The link tried to pretend that this was something NASA had been somehow keeping secret or refusing to acknowledge, and that only the fearless investigation of deluded nutbars rugged individualists had revealed the truth. If you read the article, would you have the slightest idea that NASA has explained exhaustively exactly how and why these changes were made and have given anyone who cares to the ability to check their maths? Of course not. I’s all painted as being a conspiracy, when it’s simply the result of science being performed, in the open, but some people are refusing to look. That’s just utter intellectual dishonesty.
Agree, I can’t, and I’ve tried, conceive the mind of how anyone can look at even a minuscule amount of the available data on AGW and come up with anything other than accepting the premise.
This of all things.
Hazelwood 20% reduction
Greens
Yippee
ETU
Loy Yang A 30% reduction
AGL
Daniel Andrews
Soiled underwear.
Working hard towards 50% renewables
From the wrong ■■■■■■■ direction.
As always, for the deniers, its about partisan politics. Science, logic and the actual cause & effect of CC are barely relevant.
But don’t they see that allowing themselves to form an opinion based on political ideology over scientific method is almost certainly confirming their idiocy?
Like seriously, if you don’t accept the science, don’t accept any science. Don’t chose just this one thing. The gravity of the thing. ■■■, these idiots are litterly playing daft with the survival of the species.
Wilful idiots
A phrase not used nearly often enough.
Short, sharp, & a perfect descriptor.
It’s simple. You just pretend that this part isn’t science. And anyway, lefties are trying to ruin us all.
The core business of these (leftist, latte-sipping, elitist) investors is centered around an assessment of future risk, including (presumably) probability and impact.