You clearly don't understand the issue in the slightest.
Thanks for coughing up something most people have heard before, perhaps work on why that particular screed is irrelevant.
Thanks for coughing up something most people have heard before, perhaps work on why that particular screed is irrelevant.
Do better.
It literally screams I can't be bothered making an anti-AGW case and reeks of laziness.
You do better.
Try "the urban heat island corrupt the data" or "it's the clouds, man" (a favourite of old nobel prize in semiconductor technologists that struggle to stay relevant).
Your position is boring, it's the "why worry about immigration, billions of years ago the earth was molten and there weren't even Mexicans, let alone borders or humans" of insouciance.
It's the one hand clap of the dullard too busy with their other hand.
I run my own weather monitoring equipment as a hobby and throw it in a time series database and see completely different results in air temperature, +/- a few degrees based on what side of the yard the measurement is taken on.
In a world where we are splitting hairs over 1-2c the microclimates present in an urban area matter. Things like reflections, landscaping, buildings, the presence or reduction of haze from local pollution and a million other factors make this data super dirty. And not only is the problem collecting reliable data in the present, but correcting data that was taken 30, 40, or 50 years ago with less sophisticated technology.
It was absolutely a fair point 30 odd years ago when it was first seriously raised and hammered in a number of sponsered AGW denialists blogs.
It was a serious enough point that an American climate skeptic physicists looked very hard and seriously at the data to determine if this was a valid argument against the claims of rising tempreture some 16+ years ago (IIRC). *
The result of that, and many other such studies, was that climate scientists were handling geospatial tempreture data correctly and not overweighting the tempreture of large non urban areas with readings from small constrained urban areas.
Today we are more certain given the constellation of MODIS and other satellites that continuously orbit the planet every hour and a half in precessing paths that cover the globe and return both ground level and atmosphereic depth tempreture measurements.
> I run my own weather monitoring equipment as a hobby
Good on you. I recall the instructions given to us in 1980 when setting official Bureau Met weather stations all across Australia and how to standardise and normalise instrument placement. In high school and university mathematics we also looked at the central limit theorem and the differences between single readings and pooled readings, etc.
* This was a particularly famous and well documented bit of climate debate history in the USofA theatre, I leave you to look up the details. FWiW it was "debunked" multiple earlier times, eg in Geophys Letter 1999 [1] and ranks as a standing oft repeated "climate myth" [2]
[1] https://www.science.org/content/article/urban-heat-island-de...
[2] https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
Another example is where you say we know about 0.17% (or something, no tabs here) percent of Earth's history. Well, history begins about 5000yrs ago. I believe we know quite a bit about the last 5k years. We also know quite a lot about prehistoric climates - before history. We have reliable estimates of rates of change of global temperature, and of CO2 concentrations, and we have no evidence of greater rates of global warming than now.
'the fact or quality of being different, divergent, or inconsistent: her light tone was at variance with her sudden trembling.'
That is the first entry for variance; I was not referring to its technical statistical meaning (this should have been obvious).
Recorded history and history are also two very different things - surely this is also obvious. The thermometer was invented in the 1700s. It's entirely possible that the area we now call Phoenix had 100+ days of 100 degree heat multiple times over the past millennium but we wouldn't necessarily know about it.
Even by the most pessimistic projections 'climate change' (to the extent it exists) isn't going to result in catastrophe for the first world, and certainly nothing approaching an extinction event globally.
I feel like in your mind climate change is +3 degrees on your local thermometer and you skip all the other side effects like literal billions of people migrating north because their environment literally can't support human life anymore
You went from "it doesn't exist" to "maybe it exists but it won't impact me", you took a big step already
All history is recorded history BY DEFINITION.
You shouldn't be waving your degree around, you plainly are not a scientist.
As to your understanding of this, consider tossing a coin, and getting heads. For one coin it's a 1/2 chance. For 2 in a row it's 1/4. For 100 the chance is 1/(2^100) which is about 10^-30, a vanishingly small chance.
Now let's take the last 100 years of climate data from phoenix, we can estimate the chance of any day being over 100F from the data, and from that the chance of 100 days straight of over 100F.
Given that less than half of the time it's over 100F in Phoenix, the odds of having 100 days in a row over 100F is less than 10^-30.
This is 1st year science. Your very first data analysis course.
Less pedantically, the problem with your example is that you have (really rather hilariously) taken the past century as your reference point, and that’s exactly (no really, EXACTLY) the problem. For all you know 1900-2000 was atypical. The fact that you couldn’t see the irony in what you were thinking before you typed it all out is telling.
Not sure what else to tell you.
You are correct that I’m not a scientist by profession, though - I have a BSc and an LLB from a G8 school. I don’t use my BSc professionally. That fact has no bearing on my ability to use words for their plain meaning, though, or to understand basic scoentific concepts.
Have a good day, mate.