2022 was the warmest year on record

Spoonie_Turtle

ariarnia said:

yes. it common to see bad science on both sides of the debate. 

...

for me. given the time periods we're talking. the differnt methods of measurement. the differnt equipment used (and how often its tested and calibrated). the different way the data has been stored and copied over the years. and things that ive already mentioned about changes to the physical environment. i agree with the general trend of human caused climate change but think that any claim that a specific year was 'the hottest on record' deserves a bit of scepticism. 

I'm curious why you think meteorologists would blithely make such a definitive claim without taking into account all the potential factors.  The MET Office itself said, before the figure was  finally decided: "The final provisional figure for 2022 will be available at the conclusion of the year and will then be subject to further quality control and a verification process."  You'll notice that was published a full 8 days before the BBC article about the final, confirmed figure.

"On record" is verifiable.  "Ever" as claimed by the BBC is less accurate and right to be questioned.  But the BBC are not experts, simply reporters (and we all know the standard of reporting nowadays is not what it should be).

and the claim that a single year being hotter than the 'norm' is proof of climate change is just as wrong as claiming the data means nothing. 

I agree but also that's the point, it's not that there are anomalies but that what used to be abnormal is now becoming normal.  It's not about one-off anomalies, it's about things happening too consistently to be ignored. 
> And I know you understand that the overwhelming scientific consensus is correct, I'm mainly responding to these points for other people who believe that this sort of scepticism is reason to fundamentally question everything despite not knowing enough to be able to do so.


[BTW I'm not assuming NASA *can't* be wrong, but I do trust that they (and other reputable organisations) do their due diligence AND that if they do discover a mistake, they will both let it be known proportional to its significance and if necessary revise their understanding accordingly - which is what science is all about.]

Krakkkers

And you will have checked the entire register for other members who are climate change believers?
Why do some people have to dismiss the views of others and write them off when their beliefs don't match current mainstream views.
Does it really offend people so much? what have you done that is more impressive than Jack schmidt? But never mind his achievements because he doesn't hold the right views.

ariarnia

Spoonie_Turtle said:

ariarnia said:

yes. it common to see bad science on both sides of the debate. 

...

for me. given the time periods we're talking. the differnt methods of measurement. the differnt equipment used (and how often its tested and calibrated). the different way the data has been stored and copied over the years. and things that ive already mentioned about changes to the physical environment. i agree with the general trend of human caused climate change but think that any claim that a specific year was 'the hottest on record' deserves a bit of scepticism. 

I'm curious why you think meteorologists would blithely make such a definitive claim without taking into account all the potential factors.  The MET Office itself said, before the figure was  finally decided: "The final provisional figure for 2022 will be available at the conclusion of the year and will then be subject to further quality control and a verification process."  You'll notice that was published a full 8 days before the BBC article about the final, confirmed figure.

"On record" is fairly easy to verify.  "Ever" as claimed by the BBC is less accurate and right to be questioned.  But the BBC are not experts, simply reporters (and we all know the standard of reporting nowadays is not what it should be).

i'm curious why you think thats what i'm suggesting. or why you have a problem with scepticism of science or data. questioning data is basically the scientific method. 

scepticism means reading past the article to the original data and checking how it was worked out (not 'trusting' its been reported accurately or that the method thats been used wasnt flawed). 

it was a blogger looking at the data who spotted the mistake nasa had been making with there climate change data. that data had been wrong for 7 years (and had gone thru quality control and verification every year). they had claimed 1998 was the hottest year on record since 1880. they had to change that to 1934 being the hottest year on record. 

so 'hottest on record' is maybe not as easy to verify as your suggesting. 

and the claim that a single year being hotter than the 'norm' is proof of climate change is just as wrong as claiming the data means nothing. 

I agree but also that's the point, it's not that there are anomalies but that what used to be abnormal is now becoming normal.  It's not about one-off anomalies, it's about things happening too consistently to be ignored.

it might not be your point but its the point that i've been responding 2 throughout this discussion.

but even with your point. its about looking at WHY once unusual events are being coming common in some areas. not saying its global warming without asking how much of it is down to other (human caused) factors. like building on flood planes or farming or population growth or urban heat traps or whatever else we've done thats screwing up natural systems thats not to do with co2

Krakkkers

I believe we should switch as rapidly as possible to renewables and ween ourselves off fossil fuels and have installed a solar array, but i do despair at the current world view that dismisses anyone with the "wrong" views.
Science needs alternative views and many of them have been proved right.
In this case i have no doubt that the mainstream view on climate change is correct but i am not offended by people who claim the opposite.

Spoonie_Turtle

Krakkkers said:

And you will have checked the entire register for other members who are climate change believers?
Why do some people have to dismiss the views of others and write them off when their beliefs don't match current mainstream views.
Does it really offend people so much? what have you done that is more impressive than Jack schmidt? But never mind his achievements because he doesn't hold the right views.

Not at all.  It can simultaneously be true that someone has done great, admirable things in the past AND that they can be wrong when they disagree with the overwhelming scientific consensus.  Someone can have been a brilliant actor, created work beloved by millions and advocated for their female colleagues to be treated well in the past AND have now fallen headfirst into thoroughly warped conspiracy theories also disagreeing with established facts.  (Real example, no strawmen here.)

Doesn't diminish their previous achievements, but equally past achievements don't excuse current serious wrongs.

ariarnia

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Krakkkers said:

And you will have checked the entire register for other members who are climate change believers?
Why do some people have to dismiss the views of others and write them off when their beliefs don't match current mainstream views.
Does it really offend people so much? what have you done that is more impressive than Jack schmidt? But never mind his achievements because he doesn't hold the right views.

It can simultaneously be true that someone has done great, admirable things in the past AND that they can be wrong when they disagree with the overwhelming scientific consensus.  

i know your out but i wanted to say i think (not trying to put words in there mouth) krakkers is probably meaning that theres a difference between saying someone is wrong because you have looked at there arguments/evidence and disagree with them and what was being suggested on here that there wrong because of a membership of a lobby group. 

its a reason to question. its not reason to dismiss. 

Krakkkers

But why does it matter if someone is wrong or holds the wrong view? They are not setting the policy they are merely offering a view.
Look at what is happening in the world and celebrate people thinking non mainstream views.

Spoonie_Turtle

ariarnia said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

ariarnia said:

yes. it common to see bad science on both sides of the debate. 

...

for me. given the time periods we're talking. the differnt methods of measurement. the differnt equipment used (and how often its tested and calibrated). the different way the data has been stored and copied over the years. and things that ive already mentioned about changes to the physical environment. i agree with the general trend of human caused climate change but think that any claim that a specific year was 'the hottest on record' deserves a bit of scepticism. 

I'm curious why you think meteorologists would blithely make such a definitive claim without taking into account all the potential factors.  The MET Office itself said, before the figure was  finally decided: "The final provisional figure for 2022 will be available at the conclusion of the year and will then be subject to further quality control and a verification process."  You'll notice that was published a full 8 days before the BBC article about the final, confirmed figure.

"On record" is fairly easy to verify.  "Ever" as claimed by the BBC is less accurate and right to be questioned.  But the BBC are not experts, simply reporters (and we all know the standard of reporting nowadays is not what it should be).

i'm curious why you think thats what i'm suggesting. or why you have a problem with scepticism of science or data. questioning data is basically the scientific method. 

scepticism means reading past the article to the original data and checking how it was worked out (not 'trusting' its been reported accurately or that the method thats been used wasnt flawed). 

it was a blogger looking at the data who spotted the mistake nasa had been making with there climate change data. that data had been wrong for 7 years (and had gone thru quality control and verification every year). they had claimed 1998 was the hottest year on record since 1880. they had to change that to 1934 being the hottest year on record. 

so 'hottest on record' is maybe not as easy to verify as your suggesting. 

Indeed and that's why we have peer review.  If you know enough to be questioning it yourself on a scientific or statistical basis, more power to you. That blogger obviously did, and clearly they had specific, verifiable evidence to back up their claim. 
I don't know enough to challenge the methodology or scientific claims and I know I don't.  I think critically about reporting and try to read from the source if I'm unsure or curious about anything, but anything deeper than that is beyond me and I know that.

and the claim that a single year being hotter than the 'norm' is proof of climate change is just as wrong as claiming the data means nothing. I agree but also that's the point, it's not that there are anomalies but that what used to be abnormal is now becoming normal.  It's not about one-off anomalies, it's about things happening too consistently to be ignored.

it might not be your point but its the point that i've been responding 2 throughout this discussion.

but even with your point. its about looking at WHY once unusual events are being coming common in some areas. not saying its global warming without asking how much of it is down to other (human caused) factors. like building on flood planes or farming or population growth or urban heat traps or whatever else we've done thats screwing up natural systems thats not to do with co2
In that case we were interpreting the thread slightly differently. 

(Sorry, had said I was out before seeing your post and felt you deserved a response rather than just ignoring your post!)

ariarnia

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Indeed and that's why we have peer review.  If you know enough to be questioning it yourself on a scientific or statistical basis, more power to you. That blogger obviously did, and clearly they had specific, verifiable evidence to back up their claim. 

honestly i dont think we're far apart. we both think that climate change is a thing. that's the important bit. 

and that blogger (i've been googling) has a math degree. he looked at the data. saw some dates were abnormally high. he then questioned why they were high rather than assuming it was climate change and found the mistake was the locations for some sites had changed and the time of day the measurements were being taken had changed. that doesn't require specialist expertise or statistical analysis. it requires being curious enough to look at the data and not assuming the answer is the 'obvious' one. 

"He found that the numbers for 1999 to 2000 seemed abnormally high, and discovered that after 1999, the data wasn't being adjusted to figure in the times of day the readings were taken or the locations where they were taken.
He forwarded his findings to NASA, and the review was ordered. Eventually, NASA released a new list of the hottest years on record.

In addition to naming a new year as the hottest, NASA also reduced the mean U.S. temperature anomalies by .15 C for the years 2000 to 2006."

i'm not saying everyone should do that if there not interested. lord knows ive got better things to do that sit and read through random scientific papers or databases. (i've been paid to do data QA before and its not something i would ever want to do in my free time!)

but i am saying someone asking those questions shouldn't be viewed with suspicion or dismissed as a denier just becayse there asking the questions. 

basically i dont think honest questioning does any harm (vs dishonest questioning when the person has already made there mind up the other way). where as ive seen again and again how discouraging questioning or being suspicious of people just because there questioning leads to things like trump and brexit and the terrible state of our politics (and if i say it quietly the mods might not hear me say the conspiracies and fake news in the pandemic!). all that us vs them where theres no space for middle ground and anyone saying anything of the party line must be a wrongun. 

honestly that us vs them hate and politics worries me more than climate change and its something we non politicians can actually do something about by thinking about our own assumptions and reactions to something we disagree with. 

Krakkkers

Trump and brexit were simply choices and no more than that.