[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by gthang

How is the global average temperature calculated? What are the methods and variables used to calculate and what is the accuracy?

Cheers

Glad you asked. This is not something I know off the top of my head and had to ask a friend but here goes:

To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too. The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is ‘normal’ for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period. The differences are called an ‘anomalies’ and they help scientists evaluate how temperature is changing over time. A ‘positive’ anomaly means the temperature is warmer than the long-term average, a ‘negative’ anomaly means it’s cooler. Now, to calculate the global average, this data is laid temperature data is laid out on a grid. To calculate global temperature, researchers average the readings for each grid point, weighted by the area associated with that grid point. By combining the grid boxes, scientists work out average temperatures for the northern and southern hemispheres. How much each box contributes to the global temperature is adjusted to account for the fact that the degree of longitude is bigger at the equator than at the poles. Some land and sea regions have inadequate numbers of weather stations or buoys to provide safe temperatures for particular grid points. The grid points with missing temperatures can be handled by not providing a value, estimating a missing value based on surrounding values, or using patterns from the satellite observations to aid in estimating values from the surface temperature data sets.

So, the global average we hear about is the average of these gridboxes with factors like degree of longitudes and quality of data (which is checked for biases) taken into account.

[gthang]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

So, the global average we hear about is the average of these gridboxes with factors like degree of longitudes and quality of data (which is checked for biases) taken into account.

Interesting that the main topic of contention is "Global warming" but nobody knows where this boogeyman comes from.

Any guesses on accuracy?

What about large swaths of uninhabited areas like Sahara, Artics, etc which have the extremes but not monitored?

Is the calculated average instantaneous or averaged over all seasons?

"Scientists" have this data from the 1800s? That should have taken a whole lot of assumptions and averaging.

When one asks for $100 billion dollars for 1-2 C, you would imagine that the data would be pretty accurate.

Cheers

[am1m]

Originally Posted by gthang

"Scientists" have this data from the 1800s? That should have taken a whole lot of assumptions and averaging.

Apparently using ice cores and tree rings gives a pretty accurate picture.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blogs...past-climates/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temper...st_2,000_years


PS: To spare myself from the verbal sparring that's inevitably going to happen now - I'm not posting these links to try to convince anyone about climate change, I just had a similar question too about how we could have accurate temperature data and wanted to read up, perhaps others might be interested too. Yes it is going to be easy to pick up one or two statements even from those articles and poke holes, or assume that every scientific publication is in on "the conspiracy". That's not what I'm trying to get in to, just posting links for those who might be interested in how temperature records from the past are obtained.

[VKumar]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

The ongoing COP26 summit taking place in Glasglow, Scotland is probably one of the most consequential conferences which will decide the fate of humanity as a whole. So, let me explain what's going on in a series of Q&As.

Thanks for starting a thread on this topic mate, it was needed, a lucid explanation like this one is always the best.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Whether you are true believers like dragracer567 and me or heretics like Trump fact is climate change and shortage of water are the two gravest global crises facing humankind.

Looking at the same, I believe that India has put ahead that they shall be given the membership of the NSG too, which is as usual, being blocked by our aggressive neighbor - China!

It is being said that for the NSG membership, the NPT requires to be signed, which India never did - so, if India signs the NPT today, will it mandate India to destroy its current arsenal? I understand that NPT in itself is a treaty written in the ink of injustice and India has always been sternly against it - of course due to the valid reasons too. Out of all 48, only 1 member is against India being a part of NSG, let's see what lies ahead. Our solar mission is already on the track and we are doing best among all since the Paris agreements too, but nuclear power is also a must need with the targets this ambitious IMO.

Secondly, developed countries are willing to help the developing ones with TOT, how about something like the carbon credits system? The likes of USA, UK and China need to be held liable for their past sins any way, if they have polluted, they better pay to help others pollute less - no two ways about it. $100B is a small amount if we look at the historical emissions done by these nations, they better pay through carbon credits to developing nations now, along with the TOT.

Coming to the point of others repeating the same, well it's not going to help. The way forward is CBDR only, and I am optimistic about the way things are moving. The ones who have exhausted their carbon credit, they better now help the upcoming ones save theirs - working together is the key any way. Even if the climate change is a scam, I still buy the concept.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by VKumar

Looking at the same, I believe that India has put ahead that they shall be given the membership of the NSG too, which is as usual, being blocked by our aggressive neighbor - China!

....Our solar mission is already on the track and we are doing best among all since the Paris agreements too, but nuclear power is also a must need with the targets this ambitious IMO.

+1 to that. I was about to post on the significance of nuclear power to achieve sustainable growth but you beat me to it .

From news reports I have read, some pragmatic thinking is evolving in the US and EU on nuclear energy as a sustainable and reliable energy source. Hope this thinking is not derailed by impractical activists.

---
On Solar energy, though India is installing a lot of capacity, but actual data of output of these solar plants is hard to come by.

Combined with the fact that these large solar parks are creating havoc to the local ecology and livelihoods, solar may not be the answer we should be looking to. They also raise the temperature locally as has been witnessed in Pavagada in KA, the site of India's largest solar park.

Excerpts:
The Hindu :

Pavagada solar park: The dark side of a shining story

Environment and farmer welfare organisations have flagged multiple concerns about the project.

“A lot of waste is generated during the installation of solar panels. And panels that are damaged are just thrown out, and disposed of in a scientific manner. Some companies bury the waste, some burn them, both of which pollute the environment. The solar panels consist of heavy metals like mercury, lead, zinc, and cadmium. When buried in the ground, they can contaminate soil, waterbodies, and if burnt, they contaminate the air,” alleged D. Paramesh Naik, convenor of the sangha.

.....Speaking about the loss of access to their land, the case study refers to women in the Dalit colony clearly set apart from the main Nagalamadike village sharing how they now have to walk long distances to fetch water and firewood, and how some others had to sell their sheep because there was no space for them to graze.

A farmer, who did not want to be named, expressed worry about the soil quality after the 28-year lease period. “I have 50 acres and a lot of concrete columns, iron material and other metal objects are on it now. I am afraid it will contaminate my land. I am worried that I may not be able to grow anything after the lease period,” he said.

New Indian Express

Launched in 2018, this alternative energy facility was meant to be the answer to environmentally hazardous thermal and nuclear power energy sources. But this ultra-modern, eco-friendly solution has brought misery to villagers nearby.

Well-known environmentalist, soil scientist and former IFS officer AN Yellappa Reddy said the land which has now been covered by solar panels is next to the human habitat. “When the land has vegetation and the surface is green, water gets absorbed and oxygen flows naturally. Also, farming activity keeps the soil alive,” he added.

But with solar panels replacing vegetation, the area has become hotter. “The temperature will only increase further in coming years, making it impossible for villagers to live near solar panels. They may have to vacate their villages,” he warned.

He said that the lower albedo effect, which means more radiation from the sun getting absorbed by the earth, makes temperatures rise. Especially in Pavagada, which is known for its rocky hills, this effect is more apparent. If there is vegetation, even shrubs, the temperature goes down.

Other climate and soil experts suggested that the longterm impact of cutting off sunlight and rain from the land on which solar parks stand needs to be studied before more such parks are commissioned.

There is growing resistance and conflicts raising out of the large tracts of land being acquired by the government for these solar parks.

Source 1 , Source 2

“India’s targets are massive and wholly unrealistic, but if pressed will lead to substantial adverse impacts on the environment and communities living around such developments. Moreover, the huge amount of renewable capacity installed doesn’t translate into the power generated by those renewable power projects – so what matters is the efficiency of such projects and not the installed capacity,” Lisa Linowes, who is co-chair of the United States-based Wildlife Energy and Community Coalition (WECC), told Mongabay-India.

(emphasis mine).

I hope practical, long-term sustainable solutions to tackle climate change are implemented; Not bow down to pressure from vociferous activists to do something that may actually worsen the problem.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by gthang

Interesting that the main topic of contention is "Global warming" but nobody knows where this boogeyman comes from.

Any guesses on accuracy?

What about large swaths of uninhabited areas like Sahara, Artics, etc which have the extremes but not monitored?

Is the calculated average instantaneous or averaged over all seasons?

"Scientists" have this data from the 1800s? That should have taken a whole lot of assumptions and averaging.

When one asks for $100 billion dollars for 1-2 C, you would imagine that the data would be pretty accurate.

Cheers

Thank you for asking the right questions. As with so many things in Science, unless you aren't an expert from the field, complex phenomenons like climate change (the term 'global warming' isn't used anymore as it can be misleading in a way) may seem like a 'boogeyman'. For all we know, aircrafts fly by magic and cars move around by witchcraft.

When it comes to accuracy, nothing in Science can be considered conclusive without statistical evidence. There is this term called 'Confidence Interval' which is the degree of confidence to which our hypothesis is true based on the distribution of the data. The scientific community generally require a 95% confidence interval i.e 95% of the data prove our hypothesis.

Regarding uncovered areas, as I had mentioned, the grid points i.e areas that cannot be monitored and hence have missing temperatures can be handled by not providing a value, estimating a missing value based on surrounding values, or using patterns from the satellite observations to aid in estimating values from the surface temperature data sets.

The temperature data set we have available from the year 1850 is called the "instrumental temperature record". Mind you, earlier data exists but 1850 was the first year where we had conclusive global data. The temperature data for the record come from measurements from land stations and ships which was surprisingly extensive in the 1850s helped by the extent of the British Empire during that time. As I said earlier, sufficient grid boxes is required to have conclusive data with 95% confidence interval, that's why data from before the 1850s aren't considered.

Data from the 1950s have gotten even more accurate with balloons and satellites. There are also other complex calculations based on the Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) emitted and in my field, events such as an increase in ocean acidification etc to support climate change.

Originally Posted by VKumar

$100B is a small amount if we look at the historical emissions done by these nations, they better pay through carbon credits to developing nations now, along with the TOT.
.

I agree, $100 billion is a tiny amount. Countries like India will need trillions to fully shift their economy away from fossil fuels. Developing countries still have an advantage due to their ability to leapfrog technologies though, unlike the West which needs to dismantle their existing systems first. Somewhat similar to how a lot of Indians leapfrogged to mobile phones without ever using a landline.

The carbon credit system is something I am truly sceptical about though. It induces the concept of free-market into the fight against climate change but the problem is that climate change just cannot be influenced by the free market (as with health and education) and countries/companies shouldn't be allowed to pollute just because they have the money. In a project I'm working on right now, on the side, Saudi Aramco is funding billions for Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU) systems using algae to generate carbon credits but will continue to drill and supply oil beyond 2050. I respect the free market, but this is 'green-washing' (but hey, an underpaid PhD student like me needs all the money he can get)

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

+1 to that. I was about to post on the significance of nuclear power to achieve sustainable growth but you beat me to it .

I hope practical, long-term sustainable solutions to tackle climate change are implemented; Not bow down to pressure from vociferous activists to do something that may actually worsen the problem.

About nuclear power, it remains a significant source of frustration for realists like me Nuclear technology has advanced enough through the years to make it immensely safe. Infact, the number of Nuclear accidents can be counted by fingers from one hand and caused not even a tiny fraction of the deaths caused due to pollution from thermal power plants. This is real data. It's somewhat similar to how aircrafts are infinitely safer than cars due to sub-systems and sub-sub-systems to prevent accidents given the consequences in the rare event of a failure but a plane crash generates more news just due to how rare it is and the higher fatalities from a single event. Worst of all is Germany which closed down nuclear power plants to produce energy by burning brown coal while Belgium is shutting down their nuclear powerplants to buy electricity from Germany (again made from brown coal), New York did the same. Problems exist such as nuclear waste but I have high hopes on forms of nuclear energy such as thorium-based powerplants which sadly doesn't get the funding and attention it deserves. Eventually, fusion power should be the holy grail that solves most of our current problems (eg. you can get almost infinite water by desalination due to the energy available).

Regarding the issues with solar energy, a lot of it seems to be land-use issues which is really a problem of equity and social justice that no renewable energy can solve. Regarding reliability, I read that in 2020, India and China actually shut down most of their thermal power plants to run on solar and wind as they are easier to turn on and off but I don't have literature to support how reliable solar is right now, I need to get back to you on that one.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Regarding the issues with solar energy, a lot of it seems to be land-use issues which is really a problem of equity and social justice that no renewable energy can solve. Regarding reliability, I read that in 2020, India and China actually shut down most of their thermal power plants to run on solar and wind as they are easier to turn on and off but I don't have literature to support how reliable solar is right now, I need to get back to you on that one.

Yes, the issues with solar energy is equity and social justice issues, not technological. I just wanted to highlight it as many lay people think that because solar power is infinite, solar is the solution whereas that is not so. It has its own implementation limitations.


Found some literature on the capacity utilization of an NTPC Solar plant in Ramagundam. As per my lay understanding, (I am completely out of area of expertise here, reading just out sheer curiosity), the capacity utilization factor (CUF) of this particular plant is 17.68%.

Extrapolating this ~18% to the Pavagada (KA) solar park, the actual output would probably be around 370 MW of power output (18% of 2050 MW) from 13,000 acres. That's not very efficient use of land. Please correct me if any of my interpretation is wrong.

I don't think China or India did ever shut down thermal plants. In fact, the opposite is happening in China.

Source : NY Times

Desperate to meet its electricity needs, China is opening up new coal production exceeding what all of Western Europe mines in a year, at a tremendous cost to the global effort to fight climate change.

....
China’s push will carry a high cost. Burning coal, already the world’s single biggest cause of human-driven climate change, will increase China’s emissions and toxic air pollution.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Yes, the issues with solar energy is equity and social justice issues, not technological. I just wanted to highlight it as many lay people think that because solar power is infinite, solar is the solution whereas that is not so. It has its own implementation limitations.


Found some literature on the capacity utilization of an NTPC Solar plant in Ramagundam. As per my lay understanding, (I am completely out of area of expertise here, reading just out sheer curiosity), the capacity utilization factor (CUF) of this particular plant is 17.68%.

Extrapolating this ~18% to the Pavagada (KA) solar park, the actual output would probably be around 370 MW of power output (18% of 2050 MW) from 13,000 acres. That's not very efficient use of land. Please correct me if any of my interpretation is wrong.

I don't think China or India did ever shut down thermal plants. In fact, the opposite is happening in China.

Thank you for the literature. I downloaded the paper and it is actually mentioned that the capacity utilization factor (CUF) in India varies between 12.29% to 18.8% over a year (though their reference is from 2011. Now, power plants in Rajasthan & Tamil Nadu have a CUF of 21-23%). So, I believe your calculation is right. While this is out of my area of expertise as well, a quick google search confirmed what you are saying (screenshot below). Link



Regarding the shutdown of thermal power plants, it was a temporary measure during the lockdowns as solar and wind farms have a lower operating expenditure as compared to thermal power plants. But these were temporary shutdowns which were reversed after the lockdowns. My apologies, I got the reason mixed up!

[gthang]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Thank you for asking the right questions. As with so many things in Science, unless you aren't an expert from the field, complex phenomenons like climate change (the term 'global warming' isn't used anymore as it can be misleading in a way) may seem like a 'boogeyman'. For all we know, aircrafts fly by magic and cars move around by witchcraft.

When it comes to accuracy, nothing in Science can be considered conclusive without statistical evidence. There is this term called 'Confidence Interval' which is the degree of confidence to which our hypothesis is true based on the distribution of the data. The scientific community generally require a 95% confidence interval i.e 95% of the data prove our hypothesis.

Surely it is too complex for teenage school student to understand, but hardly a deterrence to demand that it be reduced.

But surely not too complex for an average educated person to understand? My average education makes me question how the data from the commonwealth is good enough for the whole world. And why data from the most extreme temperatures (which would seem the main point) is just omitted or averaged out

What temperatures are we talking about? Surface temperature? 100 ft above the ground? 1 km above the ground? Do things like reflectivity of the surface mess with the calculation? What about the spin of the earth on its axis? It's not like we are spinning on a flat table. Does the tilt of the orbit affect the calculation? Or all these factored in by the"Scientists" with an above 95% confidence level?

Strange how the actual data that is sending teenagers to have meltdowns is just glanced over as too complex. For whom?

Cheers

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by gthang

Surely it is too complex for teenage school student to understand, but hardly a deterrence to demand that it be reduced.

But surely not too complex for an average educated person to understand? My average education makes me question how the data from the commonwealth is good enough for the whole world. And why data from the most extreme temperatures (which would seem the main point) is just omitted or averaged out

Cheers

As you will see in the graph I had posted in the OP, there has been a significant increase in temperature since the 1950s even if you insist on not trusting data from the 19th century. Mind you, this is not a single calculation, different agencies do their calculations independently, but as you can see in the graph below, they all show a similar trend.



Everything has to be estimates at this scale, for example, no one can measure the diameter of the sun (or even the earth for that matter) using a measuring tape. but as long as the data meets the confidence interval, it's considered and more 95% of the time is, valid. (which again if you have a problem with, I'd recommend you teach us in the scientific community the alternative).

What temperatures are we talking about? Surface temperature? 100 ft above the ground? 1 km above the ground? Do things like reflectivity of the surface mess with the calculation? What about the spin of the earth on its axis? It's not like we are spinning on a flat table. Does the tilt of the orbit affect the calculation? Or all these factored in by the"Scientists" with an above 95% confidence level?

No mate, "scientists" (whom you insist on citing in double quotations) just input some random data on excel sheets and call it a day while their fellow "scientists" don't even bother to check the veracity of this data when they publish it during peer review.

I would really recommend you try publishing something in a journal with an impact factor of greater than 1, you would know the unforgiving scrutiny that we face.

Strange how the actual data that is sending teenagers to have meltdowns is just glanced over as too complex. For whom?

To complex for those who still call climate change a 'boogeyman'. Those teenagers have the right to be pissed at adults who caused this problem, insist on denying the problem even exists or insist on doing nothing about it but won't have to face the consequences themselves as they would be long gone. Even I am pissed that people with a poor understanding of science or how it works cherry-pick data to show all this is some hoax (though I've no idea who benefits, not the generally underpaid scientific community, that's for sure).

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by gthang

Interesting that the main topic of contention is "Global warming" but nobody knows where this boogeyman comes from.

What boogeyman are you talking about? Trump's?

Any guesses on accuracy?

If you have data questioning the veracity of thousands of independent meteorological offices measuring temperature 365 days a year for over 100 years and all fudging it then please table your data.

What about large swaths of uninhabited areas like Sahara, Artics, etc which have the extremes but not monitored?

How do you know they are not monitored. The French had set up meteorological sites in the French West Africa colonies and were measuring temperatures in the Sahara desert in the 1890s. You don't need to measure every square kms of territory to gauge a trend.

Is the calculated average instantaneous or averaged over all seasons?

Average high and low daily across the year.

"Scientists" have this data from the 1800s? That should have taken a whole lot of assumptions and averaging.

Meteorological measurements in the West started c.1850 give or take a little. In India in 1875 ie 146 years ago. Similarly the French, Dutch & British set up Meteorological departments in all their colonies and temperature was the first measure that got taken up. Data not assumptions. The assumptions sir are being made by you and Trumpistine followers

When one asks for $100 billion dollars for 1-2 C, you would imagine that the data would be pretty accurate.

What is needed is an investment of several trillion $. The $100 billion is a cruel joke.

PS: Please use spell check

[gthang]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

As you will see in the graph I had posted in the OP, there has been a significant increase in temperature since the 1950s even if you insist on not trusting data from the 19th century. Mind you, this is not a single calculation, different agencies do their calculations independently, but as you can see in the graph below, they all show a similar trend.

Attachment 2230904

Everything has to be estimates at this scale, for example, no one can measure the diameter of the sun (or even the earth for that matter) using a measuring tape. but as long as the data meets the confidence interval, it's considered and more 95% of the time is, valid. (which again if you have a problem with, I'd recommend you teach us in the scientific community the alternative).



No mate, "scientists" (whom you insist on citing in double quotations) just input some random data on excel sheets and call it a day while their fellow "scientists" don't even bother to check the veracity of this data when they publish it during peer review.

I would really recommend you try publishing something in a journal with an impact factor of greater than 1, you would know the unforgiving scrutiny that we face.



To complex for those who still call climate change a 'boogeyman'. Those teenagers have the right to be pissed at adults who caused this problem, insist on denying the problem even exists or insist on doing nothing about it but won't have to face the consequences themselves as they would be long gone. Even I am pissed that people with a poor understanding of science or how it works cherry-pick data to show all this is some hoax (though I've no idea who benefits, not the generally underpaid scientific community, that's for sure).

Sorry to paraphrase your icon, but that was a lot of blah blah blah.

The graph you quoted, might look alarming but severely shy of information. Which regions are covered by each study? A plot of the anomaly, not actual, over a range of 0.5 C. Wow!!

Do I have to have published a paper to ask for your data? I thought peer review was done already. Just tell an ole Joe like me how you got the figure. Let me see how much whodowhat I can figure out.

Cheers

P.S. Just read another post that states that Sahara was indeed recorded and not omitted. Any consensus on how much land area in percentage is used/ was used.

Hope name calling is not the name of the game. Since Global temperature is getting your goat, hope you have studied it enough to answer basic questions without the cheap shots

[ani_meher]

My average education makes me question

1. how the data from the commonwealth is good enough for the whole world
2. And why data from the most extreme temperatures (which would seem the main point) is just omitted or averaged out
3. What temperatures are we talking about?
4. Surface temperature?
5. 100 ft above the ground?
6. 1 km above the ground?
7. Do things like reflectivity of the surface mess with the calculation?
8. What about the spin of the earth on its axis?
9. It's not like we are spinning on a flat table. Does the tilt of the orbit affect the calculation?
10. Or all these factored in by the"Scientists" with an above 95% confidence level?
11. Strange how the actual data that is sending teenagers to have meltdowns is just glanced over as too complex. For whom?

Strictly OT, but I remember that there is a name for this particular style of questioning. The person asks too many questions not related to each other, and answering each is far more time consuming than asking them, so the questioning person effectively assumes a 'win' in his circle. This is named after some US politician, who followed the same pattern. Anyone remember this name?

I don't have a comment for any of the questions asked, so edited out the gentleman's name.

[gthang]

//
Why not just dismiss as trolling when basic questions are asked?

Cancel culture is trending now, isn't it?

Cheers

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by ani_meher

Strictly OT, but I remember that there is a name for this particular style of questioning. The person asks too many questions not related to each other, and answering each is far more time consuming than asking them, so the questioning person effectively assumes a 'win' in his circle. This is named after some US politician, who followed the same pattern. Anyone remember this name?

I don't have a comment for any of the questions asked, so edited out the gentleman's name.

Thank you so much for stating it as it is and calling out this kind of social media tactics that lawyers in small court rooms use when they know they don't have a case and must deflect the debate with these tricks. The question raiser isn't really interested in the answers or data but instead only wishes to drown out rational discussion. A pity we have such ill informed prejudices on a subject like this.