💬 “Climate change” will simultaneously cause every beast and bug and weed which is a menace to flourish, and it will corrupt or kill every furry, delicious, and photogenic animal.
How would we know if the temperature went up? The only decent data collection is in the continental US and as Anthony Watts proved fifteen years ago it has serious issues. The models use a single point thermometer to provide temp data for I think the number was 1200 km in some locations, where thermometer coverage is sparse.
But even assuming that we knew the temperature all over the earth at say 5 ft off the ground, just as a sorta common thermometer height, or say 1000 ft above MSL neither of those represent a significant amount of the thermal energy available at the earth's surface, most of which is gonna come from the ground or the liquid water, because they have a specific heat that is several times higher gram for gram and a density that is many times higher at the same temperature they have an order of magnitude more thermal energy so any change in air temperature should be expected to be dragged right back to equilibrium. What I am trying to say is that air temperature is not likely to ever be the driver of climate change, certainly a change of 1 degree C should not be expected to change anything.
But even if it could we come to the problem that another commenter pointed out, how do we sort out beneficial from harmful effects. The media view of climate change really only makes sense on the supposition that it is an infernal miracle, an ill wind that blows no good to anybody simply doesn't exist in nature.
Coldest 7:36 AM EDT recorded here (Potomac, MD) on this date (7/12/2023) at this time (7:36 AM EDT) on record this morning here so far.
The most disturbing breakage of records was in music, when led by its pursuit of the benefits of technology narrowly viewed, the music business went from vinyl to audio tape and, to make the matter worse, to compact disc. Beer broke its glass record and went to aluminum, and water its glass record and went to plastic, in similar backward steps forward.
The recent "record heat wave" thing bugs me to no end. I live in North Georgia where summers are normally hot and sultry. Get up in the morning to temps over 70 at 6am. This year has been different. It's been cooler. I know summer isn't over yet but so far Spring and Summer here in my neck of the woods has been cooler than normal. Spring was beautiful with many cooler days than expected. And I do know that weather does not equal climate.
No one want to talk about the cooler temperatures we've had this year. It's been wonderful weather. But it doesn't make good headlines. I ignore stories like they've been pushing since I've known for a long time that the pushers are ignoring data from more than 100 years ago - heck they ignore data from the 1930's where it was hotter in the US than it is now. It's so unfortunate that the pushers play on the fact that most people don't know about the actual temperatures before the 1970s. Tony Heller was one that clued me in a couple of years ago so I don't believe the hogwash the pushers spit out these days, I just steer clear of their dribble, but unfortunately the clueless will keep on believing the pushers. The question is how do we get the pushers to be more accurate in their reporting as you discuss? Or how do we educate the clueless (e.g. can we clone the Tony Hellers and Anthony Watts)?
I read somewhere (within the last month or so) that all these "Climate Change" models have to assume a flat earth because the "Scientists" simply don't have the computational power to "model" the asymmetrical globe we actually inhabit. Did I read this correctly? Is this true?
It's unseasonably humid where I am in SoCal but that is to be expected, I guess, from the massive amounts of rain that we got in my area (I don't know if this is how the "climate" works, but it is what I expected, anyway) but otherwise this has been a pretty cold year.
In any event, Briggs, I'm glad you're here to do "THE WORK," because I just tune all the doom-and-gloom out from journos, whom I assume are always lying
Just got to hear John Christy talk last night on the subject. He picked apart a number of "record temperature" claims, showing they were selective reporting - typically starting the time series around 1970 or so, and ignoring more extreme weather from ~1850-1970.
As good as it is to point out all these errors and wonder about the motivation for them all appearing to be made in the same direction, I do worry a bit about focusing on temperatures themselves rather than the causes of change; It could easily turn out to be hostage to fortune.
What happens if temperatures do rise in some obvious and undeniably noticeable way? For example, as a result of the apparently dramatic rise in sea temperatures pointed at by EthicalSkeptic that another commenter has already noted? If it's real, that can't be explained away by any change to CO2 levels, but the "climate crisis" bunch will use the rise to discredit anyone who has previously thrown doubt on the temperatures, and it will be even harder to get people to think about causes.
Good point. We have reason to believe temps, specific or otherwise, have wandered about over the millennia for reasons we don’t understand. We can expect that trend will continue for reasons we don’t understand.
💬 “Climate change” will simultaneously cause every beast and bug and weed which is a menace to flourish, and it will corrupt or kill every furry, delicious, and photogenic animal.
↑↑ Briggs' winner quote my all-times favourite 😊
How would we know if the temperature went up? The only decent data collection is in the continental US and as Anthony Watts proved fifteen years ago it has serious issues. The models use a single point thermometer to provide temp data for I think the number was 1200 km in some locations, where thermometer coverage is sparse.
But even assuming that we knew the temperature all over the earth at say 5 ft off the ground, just as a sorta common thermometer height, or say 1000 ft above MSL neither of those represent a significant amount of the thermal energy available at the earth's surface, most of which is gonna come from the ground or the liquid water, because they have a specific heat that is several times higher gram for gram and a density that is many times higher at the same temperature they have an order of magnitude more thermal energy so any change in air temperature should be expected to be dragged right back to equilibrium. What I am trying to say is that air temperature is not likely to ever be the driver of climate change, certainly a change of 1 degree C should not be expected to change anything.
But even if it could we come to the problem that another commenter pointed out, how do we sort out beneficial from harmful effects. The media view of climate change really only makes sense on the supposition that it is an infernal miracle, an ill wind that blows no good to anybody simply doesn't exist in nature.
Coldest 7:36 AM EDT recorded here (Potomac, MD) on this date (7/12/2023) at this time (7:36 AM EDT) on record this morning here so far.
The most disturbing breakage of records was in music, when led by its pursuit of the benefits of technology narrowly viewed, the music business went from vinyl to audio tape and, to make the matter worse, to compact disc. Beer broke its glass record and went to aluminum, and water its glass record and went to plastic, in similar backward steps forward.
The recent "record heat wave" thing bugs me to no end. I live in North Georgia where summers are normally hot and sultry. Get up in the morning to temps over 70 at 6am. This year has been different. It's been cooler. I know summer isn't over yet but so far Spring and Summer here in my neck of the woods has been cooler than normal. Spring was beautiful with many cooler days than expected. And I do know that weather does not equal climate.
No one want to talk about the cooler temperatures we've had this year. It's been wonderful weather. But it doesn't make good headlines. I ignore stories like they've been pushing since I've known for a long time that the pushers are ignoring data from more than 100 years ago - heck they ignore data from the 1930's where it was hotter in the US than it is now. It's so unfortunate that the pushers play on the fact that most people don't know about the actual temperatures before the 1970s. Tony Heller was one that clued me in a couple of years ago so I don't believe the hogwash the pushers spit out these days, I just steer clear of their dribble, but unfortunately the clueless will keep on believing the pushers. The question is how do we get the pushers to be more accurate in their reporting as you discuss? Or how do we educate the clueless (e.g. can we clone the Tony Hellers and Anthony Watts)?
I read somewhere (within the last month or so) that all these "Climate Change" models have to assume a flat earth because the "Scientists" simply don't have the computational power to "model" the asymmetrical globe we actually inhabit. Did I read this correctly? Is this true?
It's unseasonably humid where I am in SoCal but that is to be expected, I guess, from the massive amounts of rain that we got in my area (I don't know if this is how the "climate" works, but it is what I expected, anyway) but otherwise this has been a pretty cold year.
In any event, Briggs, I'm glad you're here to do "THE WORK," because I just tune all the doom-and-gloom out from journos, whom I assume are always lying
Just got to hear John Christy talk last night on the subject. He picked apart a number of "record temperature" claims, showing they were selective reporting - typically starting the time series around 1970 or so, and ignoring more extreme weather from ~1850-1970.
John's very good on this.
A litmus test of "reasonable certainty" for the merit of model inferences?
No way! That can't be used here because ... [insert your reason such as racism, sexism, etc. here]
As good as it is to point out all these errors and wonder about the motivation for them all appearing to be made in the same direction, I do worry a bit about focusing on temperatures themselves rather than the causes of change; It could easily turn out to be hostage to fortune.
What happens if temperatures do rise in some obvious and undeniably noticeable way? For example, as a result of the apparently dramatic rise in sea temperatures pointed at by EthicalSkeptic that another commenter has already noted? If it's real, that can't be explained away by any change to CO2 levels, but the "climate crisis" bunch will use the rise to discredit anyone who has previously thrown doubt on the temperatures, and it will be even harder to get people to think about causes.
Good point. We have reason to believe temps, specific or otherwise, have wandered about over the millennia for reasons we don’t understand. We can expect that trend will continue for reasons we don’t understand.
I stopped reading when you said "EthicalSkeptic". That handle awakens great fury within me and I've never even seen what they've wrote or said before.
Care to explain why "great fury"?
The handle makes me think of the average RationalWiki article.
Dr. Briggs - do you have thoughts on the work of "Ethical Skeptic?" He has interesting theories about the cause of recent (sudden) warming of oceans. https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1678614899562360832?s=20
He blocked me years ago over some covid thing. I can't even remember what.
The only climate change the globalist ruling class should be worried about is how much hotter the climate is where they're heading.
"a she God molecule" wasn't a typo.