Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[Easy Rhino]

But none of that proves humans are the cause. They just show that humans COULD BE a cause.

 

[RejZoR]

@RejZoR The world is supposed to be gently sliding into another mini ice age (we're overdue) when it's doing just the opposite, heating up rapidly instead. Doesn't that alone tell you something?

That's not me saying about the ice age either, I've read it on the likes of New Scientist etc years ago.

I'm sure all the animals went extinct by past "gently sliding in" ice ages XD

 

[qubit]

I'm sure all the animals went extinct by past "gently sliding in" ice ages XD

I take it you've understood and agreed with what I've said and are just having a little joke.

I'm glad you now realize that this level of climate change is man made.

 

[RejZoR]

It's not. Just because it's a bit different this time around that doesn't automatically make it a man made problem. That's like going batshit crazy over one winter not being as cold as the one from 5 years ago. Shit happening on Earth that ain't absolutely precise or consistent but was in general within the lines of what happened already many times. Even if you look at the temperature graphs, they don't line up exactly every single time with warming up periods. Sometimes it was way warmer and it took way longer for temps to drop than some other exact same scenario. What makes current situation any different? It's a bit off and "it must be a man made problem" for sure then. It may be slightly affected. Or not at all. Carbon dioxide footprint increased by itself 50.000 years ago. Right? I mean, that's what science says. It increased by levels we're experiencing now. Exactly in line with the global warming and the increase of temperatures. I mean, 1+1=2 everyone? If it increased by same levels in the past, what makes them believe we're now the sole reason for it? Just because we happen to be right here, right now as it's happening? Lol. It's just so funny.

 

[John Naylor]

There's no scandal. No difference than when the subject was smoking and tobacco funded lobbyists where talking about their 85 year old grandfather who smokes 3 packs of lucky strikes a day. It's no secret that the very same folks (See "Merchants of Doubt) who perpetuated the smoking is harmless agenda for the tobacco companies are now employed by the oil companies. I'm not sure what is the true scanda a) The perpetrators of the myth that data adjustment is a scam or b) the people who swallow it up w/o a thought.

a) I taught Land Surveying and back in the day, we measured distances with a steel tape. When we got back to the office, we adjusted the measurements ... oh what a scandal ! Those with a inkling of scientific knowledge reading this have recognized by now that the dimensions of any object vary by temperature. Which is why our field logs recorded the temps at the time of each measurement. So yes, we 'fiddled" with the data to make it accurate cause otherwise it would be meaningless.

b) Are we done fiddling ? Nope .... if we took 3 thermometers out in the field, we'd could get 3 different answers; so each unit is periodically tested against a standardized piece of equipment and a certificate is provided telling u how much we have to "fiddle" with the data to get the correct temperature reading

When measuring for climate change, obviously b) above needs to be done. But what else ?

Example 1 ... from 1908 to 2014 a monitoring station has been used. The location is in an open space. In 2015 a building is constructed which casts a shadow over the monitoring station. Not only is there the obvious expected change in numbers because of the shade, but wind patterns also change. The impact of buildings, parking lots which create large "heat sinks" also changes temerature in the area. So how can there by any comparison of pre and post temp data unless one set of numbers is "fiddled with" to adjust for the fact that conditions which affect measurements have changed ? This is no different than comparing the cost of GFX cards over 20 years ... have they gone up in proce ? When you look at the cost adjusted for "2017 dollars", we find that costs were remarkably stable.

So who's right... the guy who says "Its a scandal in 2000 the top tier GFX card was only $500 , now it's $700 ... or the guy who "fiddles' with the data, makes adjustment for inflation and shows that the top tier $500 GFX card would cost $700 in 2107 dollars ?

https://images.hardocp.com/images/news/1489189662xrJkzvohX8_1_1.png

Example 2 - Over the years, the timing of the temperatures being taken has changed .. so would you say that if the 1990 - 2000 data showed an average of 80 degrees on a particular month over 10 years, then getting 80 (27C) degrees from 2000 - 2010 proves that there is no global warming ? really ? Even if the 1990 - 2000 numbers were at taken at 11:00 and the 2000 - 2010 were at 18:00 ? Isn't it substantially cooler oin the late afternoon ?

Example 3 - What about technology changes. Back in the day we made calls on land lines, no the cell dominates. Back in the day, liquid in glass thermometers were used. Now electronic resistance thermometers are used which automate much of the data collection. When used 'side by side", it's immediately obvious that they don't record temperatures in the same way. With elect9onic resistance measurement, the min and max extremes are nerfed a bit. So how do you compare the years of liquid type versus resistance type if you don't adjust for the discrepancy ? Science demands that you test the units side by side, record the deviations and then "fiddle" with the data so that any such comparisons actually have meaning.

Example 4 - Another means of determining necessary adjustments comes from comparing neighboring stations. So you have station A which was used in example 1 and station B which has experienced no change. From from 1908 to 2014, Station A's monthly averages were 2 degrees below Station B. from 2015 to present, they are2 degrees above Station B ... is it not prudent to make the corresponding adjustment when comparing data ?

The most ironic thing about his "scandal" is that the adjustments, overall, show less global warming than would otherwise be indicated. Historically, 3,297 of the 7,279 stations(45%) in use any point in time starting point since 1801 have had adjustments performed, most occuring in the 30 year period between the 50s and 80s. Over that time the number and magnitude of the adjustments have been offsetting. If a teacher grades on a curve and adds +1, +2. +3. +4 on 4 tests and them adjusts -1, -2, -3, -4 on 4 tests the overall class grade doesn't change.

Ocean data received the biggest adjustment ... the original method used was to throw a bucket over the side, drag up apail of water and stick a thermometer in it, out in the sun. The current method is to use a calibrated thermal sensor in the engine cooling water intake. Obviously we are using different instruments, taking water from different depths (surface water will be warmer) so again, unless you make an adjustment for that, comparing the data is impossible. That stopped at the end of the 1940s so had no effect on the last 78 years. But since then it has been observed that ship collected data is noticeably warmer than buoy data

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
https://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusions/
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

The Cimategate scandal belongs in with other legends like pizzagate, Qanon, the moon landing was fake, the earth is flat and the twin towers was a US deep state plot.

As for the man made part..... we have 800,000 years of ice cores showing conclusively that temps rise in accordance with CO2 levels. The last time CO2 was this high, humans did not exist. We can see 8 peaks in CO2 levels, one occurring about every100,000 years always topping out between 260 and 280 ppm. Eight times CO2 went up, 8 times temps went up ... 8 times CO2 declined, and temps declinedso the link between CO2 and temperature is irrefutable. Now we topped 400 ppm. No mystery here. Again no surprise the folks driving this agenda are the same folks claiming cigarettes were safe.

 

[R-T-B]

But none of that proves humans are the cause. They just show that humans COULD BE a cause.

Just because it's a bit different this time around that doesn't automatically make it a man made problem.

I mean seriously? Let's examine this like a court trial.

So we establish that CO2 relates to athmospheric warming (don't think so? See above).

We establish that CO2 has taken an unnatural high during a suspicious period of CO2 emissions known as the "Industrial Revolution" This is almost literally a "smoking gun." (Don't even mention the part where the numbers of the CO2 rise in ppm roughly CORRESPOND WITH FRICKIN INDUSTRIAL EMISSION FIGURES).

Dude, there's no reasonable doubt left. If this were a murder trial, humanity would be on death row by now. Why you continue to have faith that everything is not our fault despite all evidence to the contrary can only be described as willful ignorance.

I'm sure all the animals went extinct by past "gently sliding in" ice ages XD

They probably died pretty horribly. You think we are arguing any of this is nice? We're arguing it would suck far far worse were the ice age IRREVERSIBLE which is what such an upshoot could do to us.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

...the twin towers was a US deep state plot.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Not to derail the thread but there's a lot of evidence that contradicts the official story (e.g. FBI listing for Usama bin Laden never mentioning it and most of the attackers were Saudi which doesn't fit the al Qaeda MO at all). NTSB was cut off from investigating and little of the wreckage was saved. WTC-7, to this day, remains the only steel tower ever to collapse "due to fire."

 

[R-T-B]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Not to derail the thread but there's a lot of evidence that contradicts the official story (e.g. FBI listing for Usama bin Laden never mentioning it, most of the attackers were Saudi which doesn't fit the al Qaeda MO at all, and "nano" thermite material patented in April 2001 was found in chip form all around the WTC wreckage in December 2001).

That really is a topic for another thread though.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Indeed.


On topic:
CO2 -> heat rises -> permafrost thaws -> frozen CH4 is released to atmosphere
the growing number of cattle also hugely contribute to CH4 rising

In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, cattle are the absolute worst for the environment.

But beef is so tasty. :C

 

[Totally]

There's no scandal. No difference than when the subject was smoking and tobacco funded lobbyists where talking about their 85 year old grandfather who smokes 3 packs of lucky strikes a day. It's no secret that the very same folks (See "Merchants of Doubt) who perpetuated the smoking is harmless agenda for the tobacco companies are now employed by the oil companies. I'm not sure what is the true scanda a) The perpetrators of the myth that data adjustment is a scam or b) the people who swallow it up w/o a thought.

a) I taught Land Surveying and back in the day, we measured distances with a steel tape. When we got back to the office, we adjusted the measurements ... oh what a scandal ! Those with a inkling of scientific knowledge reading this have recognized by now that the dimensions of any object vary by temperature. Which is why our field logs recorded the temps at the time of each measurement. So yes, we 'fiddled" with the data to make it accurate cause otherwise it would be meaningless.

b) Are we done fiddling ? Nope .... if we took 3 thermometers out in the field, we'd could get 3 different answers; so each unit is periodically tested against a standardized piece of equipment and a certificate is provided telling u how much we have to "fiddle" with the data to get the correct temperature reading

When measuring for climate change, obviously b) above needs to be done. But what else ?

Example 1 ... from 1908 to 2014 a monitoring station has been used. The location is in an open space. In 2015 a building is constructed which casts a shadow over the monitoring station. Not only is there the obvious expected change in numbers because of the shade, but wind patterns also change. The impact of buildings, parking lots which create large "heat sinks" also changes temerature in the area. So how can there by any comparison of pre and post temp data unless one set of numbers is "fiddled with" to adjust for the fact that conditions which affect measurements have changed ? This is no different than comparing the cost of GFX cards over 20 years ... have they gone up in proce ? When you look at the cost adjusted for "2017 dollars", we find that costs were remarkably stable.

So who's right... the guy who says "Its a scandal in 2000 the top tier GFX card was only $500 , now it's $700 ... or the guy who "fiddles' with the data, makes adjustment for inflation and shows that the top tier $500 GFX card would cost $700 in 2107 dollars ?

https://images.hardocp.com/images/news/1489189662xrJkzvohX8_1_1.png

Example 2 - Over the years, the timing of the temperatures being taken has changed .. so would you say that if the 1990 - 2000 data showed an average of 80 degrees on a particular month over 10 years, then getting 80 (27C) degrees from 2000 - 2010 proves that there is no global warming ? really ? Even if the 1990 - 2000 numbers were at taken at 11:00 and the 2000 - 2010 were at 18:00 ? Isn't it substantially cooler oin the late afternoon ?

Example 3 - What about technology changes. Back in the day we made calls on land lines, no the cell dominates. Back in the day, liquid in glass thermometers were used. Now electronic resistance thermometers are used which automate much of the data collection. When used 'side by side", it's immediately obvious that they don't record temperatures in the same way. With elect9onic resistance measurement, the min and max extremes are nerfed a bit. So how do you compare the years of liquid type versus resistance type if you don't adjust for the discrepancy ? Science demands that you test the units side by side, record the deviations and then "fiddle" with the data so that any such comparisons actually have meaning.

Example 4 - Another means of determining necessary adjustments comes from comparing neighboring stations. So you have station A which was used in example 1 and station B which has experienced no change. From from 1908 to 2014, Station A's monthly averages were 2 degrees below Station B. from 2015 to present, they are2 degrees above Station B ... is it not prudent to make the corresponding adjustment when comparing data ?

The most ironic thing about his "scandal" is that the adjustments, overall, show less global warming than would otherwise be indicated. Historically, 3,297 of the 7,279 stations(45%) in use any point in time starting point since 1801 have had adjustments performed, most occuring in the 30 year period between the 50s and 80s. Over that time the number and magnitude of the adjustments have been offsetting. If a teacher grades on a curve and adds +1, +2. +3. +4 on 4 tests and them adjusts -1, -2, -3, -4 on 4 tests the overall class grade doesn't change.

Ocean data received the biggest adjustment ... the original method used was to throw a bucket over the side, drag up apail of water and stick a thermometer in it, out in the sun. The current method is to use a calibrated thermal sensor in the engine cooling water intake. Obviously we are using different instruments, taking water from different depths (surface water will be warmer) so again, unless you make an adjustment for that, comparing the data is impossible. That stopped at the end of the 1940s so had no effect on the last 78 years. But since then it has been observed that ship collected data is noticeably warmer than buoy data

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
https://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusions/
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

The Cimategate scandal belongs in with other legends like pizzagate, Qanon, the moon landing was fake, the earth is flat and the twin towers was a US deep state plot.

As for the man made part..... we have 800,000 years of ice cores showing conclusively that temps rise in accordance with CO2 levels. The last time CO2 was this high, humans did not exist. We can see 8 peaks in CO2 levels, one occurring about every100,000 years always topping out between 260 and 280 ppm. Eight times CO2 went up, 8 times temps went up ... 8 times CO2 declined, and temps declinedso the link between CO2 and temperature is irrefutable. Now we topped 400 ppm. No mystery here. Again no surprise the folks driving this agenda are the same folks claiming cigarettes were safe.

Answer to "fiddling" with something like climate data is you don't. Correct thing to would be to take more readings and things like wind patterns, physical changes in the environment would have a marginal effect or the comparisons, one 'bad' would be mitigated by one bad one. Your example is something very specific using a specific tool really doesn't apply.

 

[R-T-B]

Correct thing to would be to take more readings

From the temp of sea water in 1940s?

Ok, you supply the time machine.

In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, cattle are the absolute worst for the environment.

Cattle are also largely a human creation, so yeah. Same thing I'd argue.

 

[qubit]

I'm putting this here for the benefit of climate change deniers to exercise their cognitive dissonance and just dismiss it out of hand.

If summer 2018 isn't a wake up call, then maybe the increasingly stiflingly hot future summers will be. Or maybe they'll finally admit that the summers are actually getting hotter, but just bleat on about there "being no proof" that it's man made, when it's really obvious by now that it is, and continue sticking their heads in the sand. Yeah, that's what'll happen.

A domino-like cascade of melting ice, warming seas, shifting currents and dying forests could tilt the Earth into a “hothouse” state beyond which human efforts to reduce emissions will be increasingly futile, a group of leading climate scientists has warned.

This grim prospect is sketched out in a journal paper that considers the combined consequences of 10 climate change processes, including the release of methane trapped in Siberian permafrost and the impact of melting ice in Greenland on the Antarctic.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...events-could-push-earth-into-a-hothouse-state

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You're talking about weather again which is highly variable. Here's an example comparing March 2017 to the average of 1951-1980:

Some places get colder, some places get hotter, aggregate of the entire planet is hotter. Doesn't mean a particular person in a particular place is going to feel it.

Apparently it's gotten so hot over northern Asia that the picture doesn't even show it. Picture only goes +/- 5 C but max was 12.1 C.

For the record, that is much, much worse than last time I looked at it years ago. There was hot and cold spots balancing it out. Now, Europe/northern Asia is blatantly burning up. There's little in the way of cold spots to offset it.

 

[MrGenius]

The climate/weather(as if they're different) has not changed, in my entire life, where I live.

Plus I'm guessing you're exaggerating. One extraordinarily hot summer...and all the sudden global warming is undeniably real. Instead of putting it in proper context. Like...you just can't remember the last summer that was as hot(or hotter). Or going through the record books and discovering that there were several summers on record that were as hot(or hotter). Including some well over a hundred years ago.

 

[qubit]

The climate/weather(as if they're different) has not changed, in my entire life, where I live.

Plus I'm guessing you're exaggerating. One extraordinarily hot summer...and all the sudden global warming is undeniably real. Instead of putting it in proper context. Like...you just can't remember the last summer that was as hot(or hotter). Or going through the record books and discovering that there were several summers on record that were as hot(or hotter). Including some well over a hundred years ago.

It's not one summer. It's been steadily getting warmer. I regularly see on the weather report that this or that extreme weather record has been broken. That's a trend, not an isolated case. Also, read the flipping article, which supports this instead of trying to blow it off as a one time event.

What did I say about that cognitive dissonance?

@FordGT90Concept Not sure if you're talking to me there? That map you've posted is frightening.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Here's the raw data for the graph above:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

All figures are given in 0.01C. All figures are caculated based on the 1951-1980 average. Based on that, we're now ~1C hotter now (globally) than in the 1951-1980 base period. We're ~1.5C hotter (globally) compared to 1900.

2018 appears to be colder compared to the 2016-2017 heat wave (relatively speaking). Again, that may be because of AMOC wonkiness.

 

[R-T-B]

climate/weather(as if they're different)

They are.

Plus I'm guessing you're exaggerating. One extraordinarily hot summer...and all the sudden global warming is undeniably real.

We aren't exagerating. We are using scientific measurements to establish averages that indicate a rise across decades... and we are including all "record books."

 

[Easy Rhino]

This is why I don't bother arguing this kind of stuff on the internet. Everyone regurgitates a bunch of stuff in a few articles they read and pretend they are experts on the matter. I have been around long enough to call BS on "movements." Especially ones that have been co-opted by political groups. I will just leave this here. Please message me directly when any of the actual predictions made in the past 30 years are proven correct.

Failed Prognostications of Climate Alarm

 

[AltCapwn]

I'm surprised of how many person still think that Earth is flat and climate change is a hoax.

 

[rtwjunkie]

I'm surprised of how many person still think that Earth is flat and climate change is a hoax.

Nobody thinks climate change is a hoax. What you have is one side saying it is caused by man. The other side says it is too small a section of history compared to the Earth’s age and thousands of climate changes to firmly say this.

I think none of us are gonna know the truth either way until it happens. It might be prudent tho to do what we can to help the case for human survival, just in case.

 

[R-T-B]

I mean guys, the evidence it's happening is already here because many predicted targets (mainly co2 levels) have not only been met but exceeded. You asked me to wake you... Wake up. It's here.

This is why I don't bother arguing this kind of stuff on the internet. Everyone regurgitates a bunch of stuff in a few articles they read and pretend they are experts on the matter. I have been around long enough to call BS on "movements." Especially ones that have been co-opted by political groups. I will just leave this here. Please message me directly when any of the actual predictions made in the past 30 years are proven correct.

Failed Prognostications of Climate Alarm

So...

Blame people for regurgitating articles.

Regurgitates article?

Really sensing a pot calling the kettle black here. There is nothing wrong with sharing validated science. That article is not that, and is part of the exact problem you are complaining about.

 

[Vayra86]

Nobody thinks climate change is a hoax. What you have is one side saying it is caused by man. The other side says it is too small a section of history compared to the Earth’s age and thousands of climate changes to firmly say this.

I think none of us are gonna know the truth either way until it happens. It might be prudent tho to do what we can to help the case for human survival, just in case.

I think what we 'really have' is one side using any last straw to prevent having to do anything about the issue. Thát is what people actually say when they say 'man can never cause this'. Otherwise, why would you even say it? It has no value in this discussion at all because the facts don't lie. Regardless of who causes it... why would you still not want to do everything to reduce or eliminate the problem? Out of the idea that it is pointless? Thát is exactly what all the science ALSO disproves. It does matter what we do, and it has an immediate effect on our wellbeing - quality of air, the stability of our harvest (hey, 'food on the table tomorrow'...hi!), and preserving ecodiversity. All of these things only help us and yet, somehow, people lobby against it.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

This is why I don't bother arguing this kind of stuff on the internet. Everyone regurgitates a bunch of stuff in a few articles they read and pretend they are experts on the matter. I have been around long enough to call BS on "movements." Especially ones that have been co-opted by political groups. I will just leave this here. Please message me directly when any of the actual predictions made in the past 30 years are proven correct.

Failed Prognostications of Climate Alarm

The reason why the thread was necro'd: it was predicted AMOC would slow causing warming across Europe, AMOC did slow, AMOC isn't recovering.

I think none of us are gonna know the truth either way until it happens. It might be prudent tho to do what we can to help the case for human survival, just in case.

Think of Earth's carbon in terms of ledger of several bank accounts. The accounts are in parenthesis. Yellow are natural transactions and red are man made transactions. The balance of the ledger is negative (carbon is being added to the atmosphere faster than it is being removed:

Our daily CO2 measurements confirm more carbon is being released to the atmosphere than being removed. It really is basic math. Sure, the specifics are scientific estimates but even if the estimates are completely wrong, the basic math will always conclude CO2 is rising because that's what our instruments consistently tell us.


Oh, and the Inuit are already living it:
https://climatechangenunavut.ca/en/understanding-climate-change/climate-change-impact

 

[John Naylor]

Answer to "fiddling" with something like climate data is you don't. Correct thing to would be to take more readings and things like wind patterns, physical changes in the environment would have a marginal effect or the comparisons, one 'bad' would be mitigated by one bad one. Your example is something very specific using a specific tool really doesn't apply.

As a practicing engineer / scientist, if i ascribed to our outlook, I could not maintain a professional license. The data is not being fiddled with , it remains in its original form. But you simply can not compare readings from 1908 and 2018 without making an adjustment. If you want to compare the relative cost of bread in 1908 and 2018, you can not do that w/o accounting for the fact that a dollar is worth far less today than it was... which is why when such comparisons are made, the figures are adjusted for inflation. That's all that is happening here.

For some reason the forum does not show the link to the image I provided ... let's just try the link to the page

https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/nvidia-shows-signs-2008-2017.43294/page-173

Scroll down to post 3444. We see that the cost of the top tier card in the year 2000 was $500. So how do we compare that to today, since the 2017 dollar is worth far less than the 2000 dollar, any such equation would be a false equivalency. So the relative worth of the dollar is factored in order to provide a real comparison. When adjusted for inflation, the GTX 1080 Ti costs the same $700 (in 2017 dollars) as the GeForce 2 Ultra did in 200 (in 2017 dollars.

Here's another one. I have a 1 GB Drive from 1996 and a 500 GB drive from 2018. By your logic, the 2018 holds 500 times as much files. And your logic is wrong. In the late 90s, the marketing types at one company redefined a GB as 1000 MB to convince consumers that their drives were bigger, soon after competitors followed. Before that it was 1024 MB. So no, it is NOT 500 times bigger because how a GB iss measured has changed.

http://www.ussscctv.com/harddrivesizecapacitiescalculator.aspx

A 500 GB drive contains only 465.66 GB so today's 500 GB can fit only 466 times as much files not 500.

By your logic.... if temps taken in the 40s via the bucket method were say 22C and temps taken today via the cooling water intake are 22C, by your logic today's ocean temps have not changed in 78 years. This is a fantasy. It is fantasy because in 2018, when you throw a bucket over the side like they did back then, the water is 24C where in the 40s it was 22C ... so when the data is tabulated, there's a columns for raw data for the measured result and then next to it, an "adjusted data" column to account for the scientifically determined 2C error introduced by the sampling methodology. Tell me where we are losing you ...

1. We want to compare the ocean temperature from before 1900 to today.
2. Before 1940 they used the bucket method.
3. After the 1940s they used the cooling water intake sensor.
4. It is acknowledged that taking water samples closer to the surface always results in warmer temperatures for various reasons (bucket is warmer, surface water heated by sun to greater extent)
5. From testing, taking two samples, one using each method thousands of times, an adjustment of 2C is used to because thousands of data points have conclusively shown this number to be reliable.

So no ... under no reasonable extension of logic is there any evidence of a conspiracy other than the application of sound engineering and scientifc principles being applied. The only "scandal" is the perpetuation of a myth suggesting there is. The fact that these adjustments, if anything have depressed temperature measurements, pushes this proposition into "Enquirer Headline" territory. On the same day and at the same time they can take 2,000 temperature measurements, 1000 each way and the difference in temps is reliably consistent. So, no you can not argue that ocen temps have not gotten hotter since the 40s because they are now measuring temps "at depth" rather than at the warmer surface. The scientoic methos demands that if you want to compare data from the pr 40s era and today, you can do one of two things.

Standardize on surface water temps and add 2C to all cooling water intake measurements "at depth"
Standardize on water temps "at depth" and subtract 2C from all surface water measurements

To do otherwise is to deny the scientific fact that water temps decrease with depth.

Another sample of you argument is .. I complain that the cost of orange juice has gone up since 2015. You counter that it is the exact same cost. It still cost $1.99. I explain that in 2015, I was paying $1.99 (in 2015 dollars) for a pint container of orange juice. Now the "pint" contains only 14.5 ounces instead of 16. So the **real** cost of a pint of orange juice is $2.20 cause the gypping me outta 1.5 ounces ... you say no no no no no .... no fiddling with the numbers, a container of OJ still costs the same. When comparsions are made, the must be "apples and "apples" otherwise it's not a comparison.

If ya wanna look at it another way ... MENSAs membership is for the top 2% of folks based upon IQ. As a criteria for membership, one has to submit proof via performance on some sort of standardized test. The criteria are adjusted because sometimes the top 2% falls above or below a set score..

SAT taken prior to 9/30/1974 = 1300
SAT taken from 9/30/1974 to 1/31/1994 = 1250

So yes, they had to fiddle with the qualifying scores when the test got harder in 1974. If they didn't, their membership criteria of the top 2% is not being met

If you don't adjust data based upon conditions or influences that change during the course of the comparison, your data is meaningless.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

G = giga- = 1,000,000,000
B = byte = 8 bits

GB, therefore, always meant 1,000,000,000 bytes. Any reference to GB as representing 1,073,741,824 bytes is not following the SI standard. IEC created the binary prefix standard in 1998 to describe the aforementioned number (giga-binary-byte or 2^30) which were adopted by SI in 2008. GiB and GB cannot be used interchangeably without conversion. Using the wrong symbol breaks the math just like it does everywhere else. Microsoft is notorious for using GB to label GiB math.

Back when I had a Western Digital 250 MB drive, I checked this myself. It had 250 MB, not MiB just like my 6 TB has 6 TB, not 6 TiB. Hard drives have always used the SI standard. RAM vendors have not and still do not.