Joe Biden: "If our temperature rises another 1.5 degrees Celsius..."

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 39
Topic's author
#31
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
do you think Climate change is a communist conspiracy? 
Did I say all the predicted disasters were climate-related? No. You merely think I have a one-track mind.

As for the rest, what, you enter one search term and expect that to suffice? No, I will not give you leads. You're not paying me to be your tutor. If you care enough, you will do your own research. Yeah, if you want it bad enough, you will even bleed for it. So bleed. I've done mine.

While you're at at, why don't you see if just temperature measurement devices are all calibrated properly and frequently enough [at least annually], and sensitive enough [the measurement capability must be at least 10x the desired accuracy - in other words, if the incremental measurement needs to be accurate to 1.5 C, then the device needs to demonstrate incremental accuracy of 0.15 C] to assure the measurements are truly reproducible and repeatable accurate data. Hmmmm? IF not, the data will be flawed. I happen to be an expert in this realm, and I don't see this assurance from your experts. I've looked. Have you?

Have you eve read HR109 of the 116th Congress? That piece of shyte that is supposed to be directed at climate change? Ha! Another agenda. And, no, I won't give you the lead on that one either for the same reason as above. You're on your own. Figure out how to do research. You'll think better of yourself n the end.
#32
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
Did I say all the predicted disasters were climate-related? No. You merely think I have a one-track mind.
It might just be onset dementia. Be carful.

As for the rest, what, you enter one search term and expect that to suffice? No, I will not give you leads. You're not paying me to be your tutor. If you care enough, you will do your own research. Yeah, if you want it bad enough, you will even bleed for it. So bleed. I've done mine.
Still couldn’t find them. I found many other predictions that were’t shared with the science community. 

While you're at at, why don't you see if just temperature measurement devices are all calibrated properly and frequently enough [at least annually], and sensitive enough [the measurement capability must be at least 10x the desired accuracy - in other words, if the incremental measurement needs to be accurate to 1.5 C, then the device needs to demonstrate incremental accuracy of 0.15 C] to assure the measurements are truly reproducible and repeatable accurate data. Hmmmm? IF not, the data will be flawed. I happen to be an expert in this realm, and I don't see this assurance from your experts. I've looked. Have you?
How do you account for satellite data showing Earth’s temperature breaking records each consecutive year?

Have you eve read HR109 of the 116th Congress? That piece of shyte that is supposed to be directed at climate change? Ha! Another agenda. And, no, I won't give you the lead on that one either for the same reason as above. You're on your own. Figure out how to do research. You'll think better of yourself n the end.
They’re just goals. In practicality it would require thousands of legislative legal papers. 
Topic's author
#33
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
How do you account for satellite data showing Earth’s temperature breaking records each consecutive year?
Same questions of accuracy and calibration apply: to wit, check the following:   https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/03/15/asic3.pdf. [and note the title of the article, and this quote from the executive summary, which states:

"Instrument calibrations lack traceability to International Standards (SI) units, sensors and onboard calibration sources degrade in orbit, long term data sets must be stitched together from a series of overlapping satellite observations, orbital drift—leading to a changing time of satellite observing time during the satellite’s lifetime—"

Any other wisecracks, bud?

I don't expect you agree, but, I know what I'm talking about, and, as noted, can prove it. Meanwhile, keep listening to your "experts," who've likely never heard of metrology. Hint, it's an older science than climatology.  https://msc-conf.com/history-of-metrology/

#34
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
"Instrument calibrations lack traceability to International Standards (SI) units, sensors and onboard calibration sources degrade in orbit, long term data sets must be stitched together from a series of overlapping satellite observations, orbital drift—leading to a changing time of satellite observing time during the satellite’s lifetime—"
That is 15 year old information. A bit out of date.
.

Topic's author
#35
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
A bit out of date.
Show the the update that ASIC3 has corrected the issue.  That, alone, will tell if the info is out of date.

Never mind: here it is: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1162&context=sdl_pubs. This dates from 2015, and there is no more current data. Yes, there has been further study into the necessity, and current inability, of in-mission. calibration accuracy to replace the executive summary of the 2007 ASIC3 report because the instrumentation dewscribed in this update still refers to calibration technology/equipment developed prior to 2007.
#36
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,570
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
New Studies Increase Confidence in NASA's Measure of Earth's Temperature
By Jessica Merzdorf,
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center May 23, 2019

A new assessment of NASA's record of global temperatures revealed that the agency's estimate of Earth's long-term temperature rise in recent decades is accurate to within less than a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, providing confidence that past and future research is correctly capturing rising surface temperatures.
The most complete assessment ever of statistical uncertainty within the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) data product shows that the annual values are likely accurate to within 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit (0.05 degrees Celsius) in recent decades, and 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit (0.15 degrees C) at the beginning of the nearly 140-year record.
This data record, maintained by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, is one of a handful kept by major science institutions around the world that track Earth's temperature and how it has risen in recent decades. This global temperature record has provided one of the most direct benchmarks of how our home planet's climate has changed as greenhouse gas concentrations rise.
The study also confirms what researchers have been saying for some time now: that Earth's global temperature increase since 1880 – about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, or a little more than 1 degree Celsius – cannot be explained by any uncertainty or error in the data. Going forward, this assessment will give scientists the tools to explain their results with greater confidence.

Topic's author
#37
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
“...are likely accurate...”
Tell me what the statistical confidence of “likely” is. Let alone that measurement accuracy absolutely depends on calibration, and that activity’s own accuracy; a subject which your citation totally ignores.
#38
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,971
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
calibration accuracy to replace the executive summary of the 2007 ASIC3 report because the instrumentation dewscribed in this update still refers to calibration technology/equipment developed prior to 2007.
So is there any problems with modern climate satellites?
Topic's author
#39
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
So is there any problems with modern climate satellites?
I've already told you. Please refer again to the entirety of my #35, do your own thinking and reveal the consequences. If you cannot think through to the consequences, refer to my #37.

You don't pay me to be your tutor. Please do not ask me to repeat myself.