Prices of the electricity we use to charge

[saneagle]

It doesn't matter, you are being fed a line by people that know it doesn't matter. This has been done to death by climate sceptics. There are tens of thousands of temperature measuring stations across the world, you actually need only around 80 to do a global temperature reconstruction as long as you get the spatial weighting correct. It doesn't actually matter which 80 you choose , they can be good quality stations, bad quality stations, ones that haven't moved, only ones airports (which are quite carefully controlled) If you are interested have a look at the BEST work Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, the sceptics, Jeffid and romanm. They all tried their own reconstructions accounting for any biases, I think they all showed a higher warming trend than the established analyses.

Here is one - satellite lower troposhere Vs surface temperature based on satellite measured temperatures
View attachment 55095

It's A Match: Satellite and Ground Measurements Agree on Warming

The consensus gives confidence to satellite estimates of temperature rise in remote areas with few weather stations

www.scientificamerican.com

Yes, you can see something interesting there. Note that the headline says that the satellite is warming faster than the surface, but actually they both show 0.4 deg between 1995 and 2015.

What's more interesting is where the satellite gets its heat from because it's above the atmosphere. How much heat comes directly from the sun, how much of the sun's heat is reflected from Earth to the satellite, and how much comes to the satellite as radiation of the Earth's heat? I'm not an expert, but my instict tells me that the most heat would come directly from the sun, in which case that graph is of the sun's temperature, not the Earth, and, of course, if the sun is giving out more heat, then it seems logical that the Earth would be hotter in proportion and the two graphs would match exactly, which they do. Does that sound right?

 

[Peter.Bridge]

1) All there graphs are temperature anomaly not actual temperature ( so temperature difference against a baseline period)
2) There aren't actual thermometers on these MSU satellites, they infer the temperatures from irradiance for different levels of the atmosphere. The lowest level of the atmosphere (lower troposphere) is the one they usually compare against surface temperature, there should be a pretty good correlation. There is quite a lot of uncertainty and complexity on how this is done and they are constantly refining the way they do this to make sure the signal isn't contaminated with data from other atmospheric levels ( which as you say wouldn't bear much resemblance to the surface temperature) and to take account of satellite orbit decay. There was a major change to the algorithm in 2019 to take account of these.
3) When comparing satellite temperature against station surface temperatures you need to take account of a) only temperatures over land b) satellite coverage doesn't include the poles which are the fastest warming.

I think it's currently showing 0.19 C/ decade over land since the satellites were launched

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/

 

[saneagle]

1) All there graphs are temperature anomaly not actual temperature ( so temperature difference against a baseline period)
2) There aren't actual thermometers on these MSU satellites, they infer the temperatures from irradiance for different levels of the atmosphere. The lowest level of the atmosphere (lower troposphere) is the one they usually compare against surface temperature, there should be a pretty good correlation. There is quite a lot of uncertainty and complexity on how this is done and they are constantly refining the way they do this to make sure the signal isn't contaminated with data from other atmospheric levels ( which as you say wouldn't bear much resemblance to the surface temperature) and to take account of satellite orbit decay. There was a major change to the algorithm in 2019 to take account of these.
3) When comparing satellite temperature against station surface temperatures you need to take account of a) only temperatures over land b) satellite coverage doesn't include the poles which are the fastest warming.

I think it's currently showing 0.19 C/ decade over land since the satellites were launched

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/

What do you think of my new theory of relativity in post #960? We know that various subatomic "particles" can become entangled, but this seems to show that all "particles" can become entangled. This discovery could be very useful for communications, quantum computers and space travel. I'm surprised that Brian Cox didn't notice this because he seems to have a lot to do with climate change and physics.

 

[sjpt]

The thing that tickled me was the painting grass green.

I remember for IBM Hursley's 40th or 50th anniversary they had a marquee up before the event. On the day with the marquee gone wanted a photoshoot from the air with lots of people on the ground. But the grass under where the marquee had been had gone yellow, so they got the gardener to spread recent lawnmower clippings over the yellow bits..

 

[Woosh]

What do you think of my new theory of relativity in post #960? We know that various subatomic "particles" can become entangled, but this seems to show that all "particles" can become entangled. This discovery could be very useful for communications, quantum computers and space travel.

you can't preselect the outcome (positive or negative spin of an electron for example) when you collapse the Schroedinger's wave function of a pair of entangled particles. The probability of one outcome out of two possible outcomes through observation remains the same, 50/50. All that it says is if you have a deck of cards and reveal some, the other cards are just what are not yet revealed. I still can't see much use out of entanglement.

 

[saneagle]

you can't preselect the outcome (positive or negative spin of an electron for example) when you collapse the Schroedinger's wave function of a pair of entangled particles. The probability of one outcome out of two possible outcomes through observation remains the same, 50/50.

Yes, but it works for temperature because no matter where in space-time you measure it, it will always show higher than everywhere else. Can you make an explanation of how that can happen? There are only two possibilities: Either the action of measurement increases the temperature where it's being measured; or it decreases the temperature everywhere else. More important, the measurement not only affects the temperature at the time of measurement, but the entire history of temperature measurement throughout all space-time.

This could mean that we could solve global warming by measuring the temperature on the moon. The moon has no CO2, so presumably no global warming. If you measure the warming there, it should be zero, and it will be twice the warming of everywhere else, so everywhere else will also be zero; however, the measurement is only relative to the place you measure it, so if you came back to Southend to check the results, Southend would be warming twice as fast as everywhere else. I'd be OK in Telford as long as I didn't check anything, but the weather is pretty miserable here, so I think I might start measuring every day and steal the heat from you. The only way for you to get it back is to start taking measurements.

Actually I'm now wondering whether this theory confirms the theory of parallel universes, where each time you take a temperature measurement, you create a new universe, which causes the temperature in the universe you remain in to rise. That's very simple and logical. The only thing is that in my universe, I wouldn't be able to see the Internet to see that it's warming faster anywhere else, so I think I'll discount this idea.

Can you make a theory based on the data published in all these prestige and trusted sources that show that no matter where you measure temperature, it's more than anywhere else?

 

[Woosh]

Yes, but it works for temperature because no matter where in space-time you measure it, it will always show higher than everywhere else

why do you say that? temperature measured at sea level is usually higher than at the top of a mountain. Do you infer that the act of the measurement interferes with the rest of the universe?

 

[saneagle]

I still can't see much use out of entanglement.

It's presently used in quantum computers and quantum cryptography.

What do you think of my theory of temperature entanglement? There must be an explanation about how the place of measurement affects the measurements everywhere else in the world backwards in time. The data from Reuters, NYT, Telegraph, Guardian, BBC and every other trusted sources clearly shows it. Do you have a theory?

 

[saneagle]

why do you say that? temperature measured at sea level is usually higher than at the top of a mountain. Do you infer that the act of the measurement interferes with the rest of the universe?

It must do. See above post. Just look at this. You only need to scroll down the titles. It's only Reuters, but you can do the same for any of those other sources. This simple observation has changed my understanding of the Universe:

reuters warming faster than the rest of the world - Google Search

 

[flecc]

It must do. See above post. Just look at this. You only need to scroll down the titles. It's only Reuters, but you can do the same for any of those other sources. This simple observation has changed my understanding of the Universe:

reuters warming faster than the rest of the world - Google Search

You seem to be missing key points.

Of course anywhere that is warming is warming faster than the rest of the world. That is simply because the rest of the world includes places that are not warming as much, or not at all.

Add on of course the political objective of all those who believe the climate is warming, wanting to convince, so they will emphasise that point, appearing to or intending to exaggerate.

But no matter the argument, this planet is undeniably warming to a degree dangerous to us:

The permafrost is melting fast.

Sea ice on both poles is seasonally disappearing faster.

Glaciers that have existed for thousands of years are disappearing or already gone in some instances.
.

 

[saneagle]

You seem to be missing key points.

Of course anywhere that is warming is warming faster than the rest of the world. That is simply because the rest of the world includes places that are not warming as much, or not at all.

Add on of course the political objective of all those who believe the climate is warming, wanting to convince, so they will emphasise that point, appearing to or intending to exaggerate.

But no matter the argument, this planet is undeniably warming to a degree dangerous to us:

The permafrost is melting fast.

Sea ice on both poles is seasonally disappearing faster.

Glaciers that have existed for thousands of years are disappearing or already gone in some instances.
.

That would be a good argument, but it's every country that's warming faster than the rest. If we start with Africa, USA, Canada, Europe, China, India, Antartica, South America, Asia, Eastern Mediterranean, that doesn't leave much. Even all the Oceans are warming twice the global average. Already that's more than 90% of the globe, and if you look, you can find more. Check out what I'm saying. You'll see it's true. All those places are warming twice the global average. The only way that the global average can be less than all those places is if there is one small place not mentioned, where the temperature has gone down to absolute zero, but if that happened, it would be big news because if you went there, you'd be instantly dead, and it would be a source of global cooling and catastrophic weather patterns.

 

[sjpt]

Of course anywhere that is warming is warming faster than the rest of the world. That is simply because the rest of the world includes places that are not warming as much, or not at all.

No. Consider world is 4 equal regions, A,B,C,D, and an arbitrary unit of warming (eg degrees C per century).
If we have A not warming. B warming 1 unit, C warming 2 units, D warming 3 units.
Then B is warming, but it is not warming more than the rest of the world, just a bit more than A.

Worse
If we have A, warming 0.1 unit. B warming 1 unit, C warming 2 units, D warming 3 units.
Then A is warming, but is warming much less than all of the rest of the world.

 

[saneagle]

No. Consider world is 4 equal regions, A,B,C,D, and an arbitrary unit of warming (eg degrees C per century).
If we have A not warming. B warming 1 unit, C warming 2 units, D warming 3 units.
Then B is warming, but it is not warming more than the rest of the world, just a bit more than A.

Worse
If we have A, warming 0.1 unit. B warming 1 unit, C warming 2 units, D warming 3 units.
Then A is warming, but is warming much less than all of the rest of the world.

Good point, well presented. Do you therefore agree with my theory of temperature entanglement or do you have your own explanation for how they can all be warming faster than everywhere else?

 

[saneagle]

I've just thought of a new theory that explains how every place can be warming faster than the global average, but it does involve a bit of conspiracy theory. It all fits, but seems hard to believe, whereas my entanglement theory is more plausible, though weird, but all quantum theory is extremely weird.

We think of "global" as meaning spherical, but in maths and statistics, it just means the grand total.

Let's say that the flat Earth theorists have been right all the time, and the esteemed information sources that co-operate with The Guardian, Telegraph, Times, NYT, Reuters, et al all know that the flat Earthers are correct and have been keeping it a secret from us.

Symmetry is a very fundamental property of the Universe. It manifests itself in many ways, and it can explain how you can get something from nothing, where positives and negatives cancel each other out. As an example, you can get money out of your bank account when you have none in it. You leave behind a negative amount that will be cancelled when you add an equivalent positive amount later, so you took out money that didn't exist, spent it, then deleted the effect by paying it back later.

So, let's say we have our flat Earth that rests on a plane. On the other side of the plane is a negative version of everything, made mainly of antimatter. Everything that happens on the other side of the plane is a mirror of our side, so as I write this using positive energy, there's a mirror guy of me on the other side doing the same with negative energy, though from his point of view, he is positive and I'm negative.

When the temperature increases on our side of the plane, it decreases on the other side because the negative mirrored energy increases too, which we would say is cooling, though they'd be saying that it's us that's cooling because they think that they're positive and it's us that are negative. When you add the two together, you get net zero because the positives and negatives cancel out, and we know how all these trusted sources of information are bleating on about net zero, so I think they might know something about this. When the combined temperature changes on both sides add up to net zero, you can then claim that any place is warming twice the "global" average because two times zero is zero. Like when you get a 0% pay rise and you're not happy. You go back to the boss and complain, so he says, "Yes, I see your point. It's not enough for the work you've done, so I'll double it", then you go away happy.

 

[Woosh]

Symetry is a fundamental property of our universe but not in the way you explained. Matter and antimatter are not symetrical, at least in our region of space and spacetime.

On the other side of the plane is a negative version of everything,

only a possibility but there is probably not such a mirrored version of everything.
CERN has only recently created an experiment to show that antimatter behaves like matter toward gravity, it falls toward the centre of the earth. Not everything has a mirrored version of itself. Quite a few properties have 3 variants instead of two.

 

[MikelBikel]

I remember for IBM Hursley's 40th or 50th anniversary they had a marquee up before the event. On the day with the marquee gone wanted a photoshoot from the air with lots of people on the ground. But the grass under where the marquee had been had gone yellow, so they got the gardener to spread recent lawnmower clippings over the yellow bits..

SFC is going one better, they're remodelling people, magic! (Joke, humour, not belittling the problem)

San Francisco REMOVES their entire homeless population ahead of visit by Xi Jinping

Where are they?

odysee.com

 

[MikelBikel]

I think you've got something there..
But it's worse than that Jim..

https://www.science.org/content/article/arctic-warming-four-times-faster-rest-world

Arctic is in the lead with 4 times faster, wins the gold..

Large parts of Europe are warming twice as fast as the planet on average

The warming during the summer months in Europe has been much faster than the global average, shows a new study. As a consequence of human emissions of greenhouse gases, the climate across the continent has also become drier, particularly in southern Europe, leading to worse heat waves and an...

www.sciencedaily.com

Europe is runner up for the silver..
"parts of the Middle East, India, and East Asia that may also warm faster than the rest of the globe"

Where will people experience the most warming from climate change?

Europe and the Arctic are warming fastest, but there are many more people in parts of the Middle East, India, and East Asia that may also warm faster than the rest of the globe.

climate.mit.edu

The rest of the field are trailing, bronze uncertain..
But according to MIT the spot that's bucking the trend, the tail end Charlie so to speak is..
"There is also a persistent spot in the North Atlantic Ocean that is cooling while the rest of the globe warms, driven by atmospheric changes"

 

[saneagle]

Matter and antimatter are not symetrical, at least in our region of space and spacetime.

only a possibility but there is probably not such a mirrored version of everything.
CERN has only recently created an experiment to show that antimatter behaves like matter toward gravity, it falls toward the centre of the earth. Not everything has a mirrored version of itself. Quite a few properties have 3 variants instead of two.

If you don't believe in symmetry, you have tp make another explanation of where the universe came from. It can't have come from nothing, and if you imagine that some sort of devine being created it, you have to explain where that devine being came from, and so on.

Sure, we don't yet have the understanding of where everything came from. People are still trying to figure out dark matter and why gravity is so low. All that means is there is a knowledge gap. It doesn't exclude symmetry, which for me is the only logical explanation.

Can you give your explanation how every part of the world is warming twice as fast as the rest? Peter has gone a bit quiet. I'd appreciate his thoughts on the matter. We have temperature entanglement, flat Earth, multiverse theory, the universe is a hologram, we live in a projection of reality that is flawed or what?

 

[MikelBikel]

And the prize for fiction goes to..

https://www.theunion.com/opinion/norm-sauer-mann-s-hockey-stick-a-documented-hoax/article_5e9bee14-1468-59aa-90d9-6d1e82f584cf.html

Real scientists: "Show us your hockey stick algorithm"
Michael Mann: "No, it's confidential, nah"

 

[Woosh]

We have temperature entanglement, flat Earth, multiverse theory, the universe is a hologram, we live in a projection of reality that is flawed or what?

All of them are not complete theories. They are just suggestions or points of view. I don't pay much attention to them. Even our standard model of subatomic particles is not complete. Our understanding is fact based and as we find more facts, we understand better. It's only recently that we have attosecond physics, we can begin to probe subatomic particles. I don't really care for how the universe is formed or what reality is really but if I have to choose, I would still go for the big bang theory, presence of dark matter, dark energy and local hidden variables. The theory i's not complete and very probably wrong but it's still better than the rest.