The climate change debate continues.

[octave]

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

Even internal Memos of the Oil Companies  that have come to light, recently

yep

 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

 

[kgwilson]

Changes to the climate have occurred for over 3 billion years. It took this amount of time for the suns energy to enable life forms to create the fossil fuels we use today. We have used at least half of all the known reserves and most of the easily extractable fossil fuel in the last 150 years. So that is about 150 billion years of stored energy gone with all the waste going in to the atmosphere and oceans in only 150 years. Anyone who thinks that has not affected our climate must have rocks in their head..

 

Also climate variations from ice ages to Antarctica being green to a world too hot for land mammals to survive took thousands of years, some times millions of years. The last 40 years has seen the largest average temperature increase in recorded history and that is not very long. Mini ice ages and heat waves  have occurred during human occupation of the planet but that is a measly 1 million years at best. At least 21 human species have existed but we are the only one that has survived for the past 40,000 years, the others wiped out for a number of reasons including the climate.

 

We have to reduce our emissions or risk extinction which if we continue to increase them at the current rate will only be a few hundred years or less. Once we have used all of the fossil fuels available the planet will settle down to do its thing with changes occurring over the next few million years till the sun burns out.

[facthunter]

The Sun will become a Red Giant. Meanwhile Back to the Next 200 years which is of some Immediate concern to us I feel. Nev

[facthunter]

There is no PLANet B. This place is the best for Millions of light years. This Blue Planet and US were made for each other. Why not look after it?  Nev

[onetrack]

Quote

(figures) show a clear, sustained rise in global surface temperatures of roughly 1.8°F (C) since 1880

Octave, I don't see how this statement can be scientifically correct, simply because of the major difference in the accuracy of temperature-measuring instruments, and measuring methods, between 1880 and 2026.

 

Now, even NASA admit the old instruments and methods were inaccurate - but they only go into how good their current measuring systems are! They totally fail to address the possible discrepancies by utilising the old records!

 

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/

 

QUESTION: What were the temperature measuring accuracy differences between 1880 and 2026?

 

Major differences in temperature-measuring instruments between 1880 and 2026 center on the shift from manual, liquid-in-glass (LiG) technology to automated, electronic sensors, and a massive increase in spatial coverage and calibration precision. While 19th-century mercury thermometers were inherently accurate to within roughly 0.1°C–0.2°C, modern systems (2026) offer higher resolution, near-instantaneous logging, and lower uncertainty through digital, satellite, and AI-integrated networks. 

Key Differences in Accuracy and Technology (1880 vs. 2026)
Instrument Type (Manual vs. Digital): In 1880, measurements were primarily taken with mercury-in-glass thermometers housed in early Stevenson screens. In 2026, the standard is electronic, using thermistors, resistance temperature detectors (RTDs), or infrared sensors.
Measurement Frequency and Consistency: 1880s thermometers required manual reading and resetting of maximum/minimum markers, which could introduce human error and bias. By 2026, AI-integrated digital systems provide continuous, automatic, and remote logging, eliminating manual reading errors.
Calibration and Stability: Well-maintained 1880s mercury thermometers were highly accurate, sometimes reported as being accurate to 0.1°C. However, modern Platinum Resistance Thermometers (PRTs) and digital sensors (2026) allow for higher stability and more frequent, standardized calibration, reducing drift.
Data Coverage and Spatial Uncertainty: While individual instruments in 1880 were accurate, the density of weather stations was low, leading to high spatial sampling error. By 2026, thousands of stations, along with satellite data and AI, significantly reduce this uncertainty. 

Key Factors Influencing Historical vs. Modern Data
Environmental Bias (Urban Heat Island): A significant difference is not the thermometer itself, but its surroundings. 1880s stations were often rural. By 2026, many stations are located in developed urban areas, requiring complex adjustments for the "urban heat island" effect.
Methodology Changes: The shift from measuring sea surface temperatures via wooden buckets to engine intake sensors on ships (post-1950s) required significant, complex data adjustments.
"Accuracy Paradox": Some analyses suggest that properly maintained 19th-century thermometers were more accurate in absolute terms than some modern, cheaply made electronic sensors that may have higher, wider margins of error (e.g., ±2°F). However, the modern ability to network and calibrate thousands of sensors yields better global accuracy. 

In summary, 1880s instruments were reliable but sparse and manually operated, while 2026 instruments are automated, dense, and digitally integrated, providing far greater, though constantly adjusted, accuracy for global averages

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The other problem is that most of the land surface has no records until recently. Historical records are biased to the USA and some western European countries. There can be no "global" temperature estimate, even for the land masses and there are virtually none for the air over the oceans which make up 70% of the planet's surface. If reliable records exist they only cover the past 40 years or so since satellite scanning measurements began. Even there, there are scientific papers pointing out the errors in satellite measurements,

[pmccarthy]

[octave]

39 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

I don't have any philosophical objections to nuclear, where it is found to be the most practical solution.     I think, in fact, the solution will not be just one method.  Every generation source has its pros and cons. My scepticism over nuclear in the short term is a matter of time and cost. Sure,  start planning and building nuclear where it will be most appropriate. In the meantime, keep building the lower-cost, quicker solutions until nuclear can be built.  

[Siso]

Yep and no need to rebuild the intermittents as nuclear comes on line.

[octave]

1 minute ago, Siso said:

Yep and no need to rebuild the intermittents as nuclear comes on line.

I guess the same evaluation applies.  Between 1900 and 2011, I lived on a beautifull 44acre bush block, although up until this point I had lived on grid power.  This block was several KMs from the nearest power.     I had three choices: pay around $30000 to extend the power poles, install a diesel or petrol generator or install a solar battery system, which at the time was in its infancy. We took the rational choice and installed solar. One of the things I like was energy-wise, we were standing on our own two feet. One of my crusty old conservative neighbours actually said that solar was "gay", they were the ones "cuckolded" by the power company with monthly bills. Now I am on the grid. Although I am now on the grid, I have solar that generates more than twice what I need. Of course, when it is cloudy or at night, I rely on the grid, which is either wind, grid sized battery or failing those 2 sources, filthy brown coal. Only an idiot would think the brown coal is preferable to the other two. If I had a home battery, I think I could once again. The economic case for a battery is just dubious at the moment but the price of this tech is falling all the time.

 

Even the most ardent coal/gas/nuclear fans must admit that harvesting the more than ample energy that the sun provides us (solar wind, tidal and wave) is the holy grail. So we are not there yet, but  only an idiot would think that digging for energy is somehow superior.

[Litespeed]

Obviously there are a lot of bloody idiots.

[Marty_d]

Renewables are cheaper, greener, and don't harm the ecology - or human health for that matter - anywhere near as much as fossil fuels.

Kind of makes you wonder why anyone would argue against them, whether or not they accepted the science proving anthropomorphic climate change.

[facthunter]

 And they are VERY GOOD at it. The safest form of Nuclear energy is the SUN.  At some locations Nuclear is Probably the only way to run  a modern way of life but it adds to the Heat that is HERE and the Sun's energy Comes anyhow and will for as long as the Planet is Liveable. Recycling has to Play a bigger part of the Picture. China would have to be the Most Fair dinkum Country in this respect, now. The USA is Probably  the Least at the Moment.. Not all Americans agree with Trump but he's done a lot of damage with His Lack of Knowledge and sheer Ignorance of many things. Cites in Europe used to Just STINK of diesel fumes. They don't NOW. Science Continues to look for facts and not  beliefs. Science is NOT "Just ANOTHER belief as T Abbot put's it. He's a good Public example of how Lack of at Least SOME Science in his Education can do a lot of damage. and cost a lot of Money..  Aeroplanes are Not Designed in Monasteries, Safe bridges are designed and built by experts and People who know what they are doing. Not By FAITH..Nev

[octave]

Hopefully, you folks who think climate science is airy-fairy bullshit will man up and watch this video.  I will take a pretty dim view of you if you criticise this video, and it is clear you did not even watch it.  The maker of this video, "Christina Hoffensfelder," is not a soft touch. She is pretty savage about "renewable optimism" and is savage about the likes of Greta Thunberg. Sorry, but (and I regret this because on other matters I think you are right)  If you guys  have solid rebuttals of this video, please provide them.  Sabine is quite happy to answer questions, and I have in the past 

 

 

[octave]

12 minutes ago, octave said:

Hopefully, you folks who think climate science is airy-fairy bullshit will man up and watch this video.  I will take a pretty dim view of you if you criticise this video, and it is clear you did not even watch it.  The maker of this video, "Christina Hoffensfelder," is not a soft touch. She is pretty savage about "renewable optimism" and is savage about the likes of Greta Thunberg. Sorry, but (and I regret this because on other matters I think you are right)  If you guys  have solid rebuttals of this video, please provide them.  Sabine is quite happy to answer questions, and I have in the past 

 

 

I would love the climate change doubters  to present a case against  this, but I don't believe they can

[pmccarthy]

I will watch it. I think she is a very smart lady.

[octave]

Anyone???????

1 minute ago, pmccarthy said:

I will watch it. I think she is a very smart lady.

Good. She presents a view between renewable scepticism and realism that you can respect. CO2 absorbs infrared at a rate greater than it radiates, This is a fact of physics.  

[octave]

34 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

I will watch it. I think she is a very smart lady.

And do you accept her findings or do you think she is somehow co-opted by hi[ppe-dippie climate fantasists. If so pl.e4se show how. 

[octave]

I have followed  for many years . If you think she is a dumb f***k then please produce your assertions 

[octave]

4 minutes ago, octave said:

I have followed  for many years . If you think she is a dumb f***k then please produce your assertions 

Nothing???????

[octave]

53 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

I will watch it. I think she is a very smart lady.

Great.  Sabine definitely agrees with anthropomorphic climate change. I am happy to post a detailed assertions. 

[facthunter]

I will be busy till tomorrow afternoon, then I will get a round tuit . Nev

[nomadpete]

19 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I will be busy till tomorrow afternoon, then I will get a round tuit . Nev

Sorry, Nev. I only have a square one.

I await your elucidation with bated breath.

[octave]

1 minute ago, nomadpete said:

Sorry, Nev. I only have a square one.

I await your elucidation with bated breath.

I just looked up bated breath, and although I have great respect for Nevs opinion, there are limits

[nomadpete]

1 minute ago, octave said:

I just looked up bated breath, and although I have great respect for Nevs opinion, there are limits

Oops

 Sorry. Should I have said 'baited breath'?

My grasp of english language is limited. I only have been coached in ine lower class vernacular.