Not even metaphysically correct. Just Mosher-stupid. It has its own category of stupid.
You boys ever see a digital thermometer with an arrow to right of the temperature display: up, down, flat?
What do you think the arrow is measuring?
Or maybe you’ve been behind the yoke of an aircraft and are familiar with one of the standard instruments called a Rate of Climb indicator. What is it measuring?
Like duh.
Seems to me NOAA needs a new director.
“Just surrounding a thermometer with air does not necessarily give you a good indication of the air temperature, however you choose to define it.”
Actually that does give a good indication of air temperature. The problem here is the thermometer is surrounded by m0r0ns.
they don’t think of the young oysters, do they.
LOL
“Neither. You cant measure trends.”
But you can measure changes in trends.
This extraordinary research along with its bizarre conclusions plays into the hands of those who maintain that common sense is deserting scientific endeavours surrounding climate. As we entertain guests at new year celebrations with stories of long-drawn bows we cast doubt against scientific rent-seekers. In that sense I actually encourage outlandish research. It merely hastens the end of the dimunition of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_sink_(disambiguation)
Heat sink (disambiguation)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe term heat sink may refer to:
Heat sink, a component used to conduct heat away from an object
Thermal energy storage, a number of technologies that store energy in a thermal reservoir for later reuse
Urban heat island, an urban area with a tendency to absorb sunlight at much higher rates than the natural landscape
A heat reservoir which can absorb arbitrary amounts of energy without changing temperature
I can’t tell from context of your writing which meaning you want.
Will the film have English subtitles?
Just askin’
Actually I am not sure if they don’t all apply in this conversation.
This is the same science equivalent of “stupid pet tricks” that is played with polar bears. Simple Zohnerism.
Fossil fuel -> bad (no sensible reason given)
Fossil fuels produce CO2
CO2 -> bad
Arctic ice is low so it must be CO2’s fault
Low sea ice is bad because it is caused by CO2, so Arctic animals must be harmed by more CO2, whether or not they are actually harmed.
At least with polar bears there is Dr. Susan J. Crockford to explain what a crock the official line is:
http://polarbearscience.com
It would be helpful if there was a walrus equivalent of polarbearscience.com.
I can’t see why people care so much about Arctic Ice.
Nasty cold, barren stuff inhabited only by increasing numbers of huge lumbering cannibalistic carnivores with sharp teeth and claws who view humans as their lunch.
Surely we should want less of it, not more?
David Springer,
You wrote –
“Actually that does give a good indication of air temperature. The problem here is the thermometer is surrounded by m0r0ns.”
I have to appeal to authority. Sorry about that. I can quote authorities such as Maxwell and Tyndall at length, but I’m sure you would dismiss them as old fashioned. Possibly Richard Feynman might suffice, but you might dismiss quantum electro dynamics as mumbo jumbo.
So here’s a very small test. Stand in front of a roaring fire on a cold winter’s day. Inside might be nice – less wind. Wall temperatures are below freezing. Now take your thermometer and measure the air temperature. According to you, a thermometer surrounded by air should measure the air temperature. The temperature seems a bit high. Maybe you need to shield the thermometer from the fire. Whoops, maybe your body heat is affecting the thermometer. Okay, move the thermometer over there. No good, the winter sun shining through the window seems to be affecting things. Oh no, you just noticed the thermometer bulb has some soot on it. And so it goes.
You’re right. The thermometer is surrounded by . . . climatologists.
I’ll agree with Maxwell, Tyndall and Feynman. You can stick with Hansen, Mann, and Schmidt. Good luck.
Cheers.
A thermometer (mercury or thermistor) is a point measuring device ones you move beyond a cm to mm scale.
Below that it operates as an integrating instrument over its surface to the outside world.
Above that it operates as a point sampling device.
l…look you, they’re dwelin in a fictionall world.
Agreed about the collection methods.
Disagree that you use those in the way currently done to provide an accurate analysis step.
Geoff,
C&W are dealing with global averages. To get that average, you have to estimate each point and add them up. That’s usually done by estimating grid cell values, then assuming constant within cell, though you can do fancier. There is an assumed value for each cell – if you don’t make one explicitly, averaging will assign to them the average value of the rest, but usually you know better. Interpolating means that you give a missing cell a value consistent with neighbors. Kriging is a way of doing that. But if there is plenty of neighbor information, any reasonable interpolation scheme will give much the same result.
Some parts of the Arctic like the Davis Strait are at their carrying capacity for polar bear. There is also considerable walrus poaching.
Polar bear, killer whales, and people kill walruses.
If we killed off some of the 30,000 or so polar bears, and if we did something about the poaching, we could have more walruses.
Evan.
“Satellite is a good proxy for surface,…”
Roy Spencer does not agree with you. At least not for MSU/AMSU:
evan: LInks to published papers on the CRS-bias?
