Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Off-Topic
General Chat
Saving the planet
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Oldvatr" data-source="post: 2228006" data-attributes="member: 196898"><p>One thing to be aware of is that most of the anthropogenic data is now collected from one single source - Copernicus satellite network. This was started in 2008 and went online in 2014 with the launch of 4 Sentinel satellites. Another 3 are planned in the next 3 years which will provide an upgrade to ther capability since they are new version 3 technology</p><p></p><p>Now when the scientists claim that the world temp is highest now than it has ever been, then they are using and comparing this modern but new techonology using spectroscopy and infrared inamging to measure GHG content and land surface temperatures against an established land based network of weather stations, weather ships, aircraft around the world. The technology being new is not proven and may have systemic errors in it. The data used by METEO and other bodies is now solely reliant on this technology, and no longer uses the older established land based instruments. It is comparing two different sets of results and claiming they are the same thing, but it may not be, The days of weather balloons and radiosondes are over. It is all calculated live and on the flypast over an atmosphere that has pollution and particulate matter and varying moisture content that might skew the results.</p><p></p><p>They have a new toy to play with, but are they using it correctly? I did see a report on the version 1 satellites that used FLIR imaging that they were only accursate to abour 3 degrees and had repeat reading variance of the same order of error when compared to the actual ground stations below at the same time. the question is have they learnt enough in version 2 as used today to compensate to show the claimed 1,5 degree rise they are trumpeting. Granted the 1.5 world temp rise is an average value, so maybe the eroors all cancel out over time. (maybe, maybe not?)</p><p></p><p>Edit to add: the official error budget for the Generation 2 Copernicus is 2.5 degrees (RMS) on a 10 day averaged value which is saying within _/- 3 degrees for each pixel analysis. This figure is corrupted by further error due to local humidity conditions and the Dew Point at the site. It uses an estimated static assumption for these values, so will not record correct values for changing conditions. </p><p></p><p>There is a systemic error in the measurement model analysis in that they overcompensate during the day, and undercompensate at night. The computer model assumes NTP conditions apply, and so cloud cover and precipitation also feeds in an error. There is also a seasonal error that thry mention but do not ennumerate in their discussion document. </p><p></p><p>I see Greta is calling today in Brussels for full compliance to Nett Zero in the EU by 2030 at the latest, and that the current EU plan published yesterday is not acceptable. She is demanding full cessation of fossil fuel use by 2025.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oldvatr, post: 2228006, member: 196898"] One thing to be aware of is that most of the anthropogenic data is now collected from one single source - Copernicus satellite network. This was started in 2008 and went online in 2014 with the launch of 4 Sentinel satellites. Another 3 are planned in the next 3 years which will provide an upgrade to ther capability since they are new version 3 technology Now when the scientists claim that the world temp is highest now than it has ever been, then they are using and comparing this modern but new techonology using spectroscopy and infrared inamging to measure GHG content and land surface temperatures against an established land based network of weather stations, weather ships, aircraft around the world. The technology being new is not proven and may have systemic errors in it. The data used by METEO and other bodies is now solely reliant on this technology, and no longer uses the older established land based instruments. It is comparing two different sets of results and claiming they are the same thing, but it may not be, The days of weather balloons and radiosondes are over. It is all calculated live and on the flypast over an atmosphere that has pollution and particulate matter and varying moisture content that might skew the results. They have a new toy to play with, but are they using it correctly? I did see a report on the version 1 satellites that used FLIR imaging that they were only accursate to abour 3 degrees and had repeat reading variance of the same order of error when compared to the actual ground stations below at the same time. the question is have they learnt enough in version 2 as used today to compensate to show the claimed 1,5 degree rise they are trumpeting. Granted the 1.5 world temp rise is an average value, so maybe the eroors all cancel out over time. (maybe, maybe not?) Edit to add: the official error budget for the Generation 2 Copernicus is 2.5 degrees (RMS) on a 10 day averaged value which is saying within _/- 3 degrees for each pixel analysis. This figure is corrupted by further error due to local humidity conditions and the Dew Point at the site. It uses an estimated static assumption for these values, so will not record correct values for changing conditions. There is a systemic error in the measurement model analysis in that they overcompensate during the day, and undercompensate at night. The computer model assumes NTP conditions apply, and so cloud cover and precipitation also feeds in an error. There is also a seasonal error that thry mention but do not ennumerate in their discussion document. I see Greta is calling today in Brussels for full compliance to Nett Zero in the EU by 2030 at the latest, and that the current EU plan published yesterday is not acceptable. She is demanding full cessation of fossil fuel use by 2025. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Off-Topic
General Chat
Saving the planet
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…