Fun with thermometers in Oz 3

[TiCl4]

TugboatEng,

First, I agree with you and others that temperature measurements are a huge wrench in the climate change data, both from an instrumentation change from historial measurements and from a dry/wet bulb variations that occurs in humid/windy climates.

However, I don't know why you are arguing about sublimation not requiring energy. It does. Take you quote below and stick it in more relevant contexts:

SwinnyGG, if you take apot of water at 212°F and place it in a oven at 212°F it still boils. Where is the heat coming from if there is no temperature differential?

There is heat required to change state from liquid to vapor phase. Amazingly, the heat required to sublimate is the combination of the heat of fusion and heat of vaporization at that respective temperature!

In your theoretical case the ice will sublimate, cooling the ice and air until an equilibrium is reached between ice and air at a lower temperature. Both the air and ice will be cooler, with the drop in temperature accounted for by the increased enthalpy of the vapor phase. In this case, the partial pressure of water in the system will equal the vapor pressure of the ice. This isn't any different than if you changed the values and assumed a starting phase of water and completely dry air at normal temperature and pressure. Both ice and water have a vapor pressure and will come to equilibrium with their surroundings. If starting with an isothermal and adiabatic system with ONLY dry air above the ice, then measured temperature will DROP. That is where the heat comes from.

 

[TugboatEng]

Thank you for a very clear explanation. I was stumped by heat not necessarily being added but the temperature drop and entropy increase of the system makes sense.

I brought it up because sublimation may be a bigger part of the equation than many think.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-sublimation-solid-ice-quickly-evaporation.html

 

[JoshPlumSE]

No rocket science...

I'd say that it's considerably more complicated than "rocket science". Though, that's because rocket science itself isn't all that complicated..... I agree that temperature collection and processing is not incredibly difficult compared to many things. It's kind of like all the Meta data collected / manipulated by the Apple, Googles, Facebooks of the world. There is a massive amount of data. Some of which needs to be thrown out. Some of which needs to be edited. Some of which may need to be given greater weight because it's so much more accurate.

This process of data processing / manipulation is very, very involved. In order to be academically rigorous, your process of treating each type of measurement needs to be very well defined and documented. You cannot deviate from those processes unless you have a very good and well documented reason.

What's more is that when you're also dealing with historical data, you need to have additional processes for EXACTLY how you treat that historical data so that it can be reasonably be compared to current data. Right?

The problem is that these groups have been caught "fudging" their data before and they haven't been able to explain how they got from the raw historical data to the data they released for comparison to today.

I'm not lambasting these guys or calling them liars or saying there is a conspiracy. Just pointing out that this is a source of some "doubt" based on everything we currently know.

This is one of the reasons why I would like to know how the "raw data" from less fungible sources (deep ocean temps, satellite temps) compares to what we're seeing in temperature rise from these other sources. Right? When the raw data needs less manipulation, then I will have a little more confidence in the patterns it shows. If it shows a similar pattern to the massive data that needs huge amounts of manipulation be processed then I'll have more confidence in it.

 

[Tomfh]

The problem is that these groups have been caught "fudging" their data before and they haven't been able to explain how they got from the raw historical data to the data they released for comparison to today.

And did they learn from it? Yes. Just not in the way you might hope. Instead of looking in the mirror, they spun the exposure of their bad practices into a case of “illegal data theft”. Their hard work “stolen” by malicious “deniers”. It was a skilled PR campaign. It seems to have worked on most people. For whatever reason the average person isn’t interested in what the climate scientists actually did, and continue to do.

Those scientists are far more guarded with their data and Methodology now, as we see with BOM. They do not disclose their methods. They do not explain what they’ve done. They just say “trust us, we’re the experts”. If anyone wants to see the data they’re branded “deniers” and accused of “harrassment”.

https://amp.theguardian.com/science...aign-against-the-bom-then-came-the-harassment

 

[dik]

I don't think so, Josh. As long as you can identify the manner, so the results can be duplicated (compared elsewhere). I don't think it's that difficult unless you are purposely trying to obscure data or information.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

Answers to the Guardian article.

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2023/05/the-guardian-temperatures-misinformation-part-1/

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Tomfh -

A quote from that article citing Neil Plummer (not related to me that I know of) who used to work for BoM:

The warming trend in Australia is visible in the adjusted and unadjusted data, and Plummer says it also aligns with the warming seen in the ocean around the continent, and with “18 other independent data sets around the world, including from satellites looking at the lower atmosphere”.

This is great. I want to see this data. The "Deep Ocean" temperature plots. The "lower atmosphere" plots and such and compare them to their data sets. That's all I want. That will give me a lot more confidence in what they're saying. Please release those plots and data! Please write articles emphasizing those plots and that data!

 

[rb1957]

ok,
1) why did Mann "hide" (ie not release) his data and his data model to McIntyre & Mckitrick ? Well, not until they forced him, and then he handed it over with very bad grace.

2) What did they see in his data model ? The grossest manipulation of the data ... they got a hockey stick output from a noise input !

3) Who cared ? Not many (like Climategate), it was yesterday's news ... the headlines were written, the science was confirmed, "deniers" were ridiculed.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Oh, and a response by the "skeptics" about the harassment (from Dr Jennifer Marohasy and Dr John Abbot) , also from that article:

“There has been no harassment on our part,” she said. Because the bureau had initially refused to release the Brisbane data from mercury probes, leaving her and Abbot to resort to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to get the information, “the harassment, obstruction and misinformation has been by the bureau”.

I find it interesting that these two Drs are so heavily criticized in this article. They're not exactly "climate" scientists. But, they do have PhD's in biology and Chemistry. So, they are a quantum leap above the understanding of the general public. My guess is that they have legitimate concerns that the public may be getting systematically duped by BoM and they have the scientific background to dig into the data and object. Rather than respond as a researcher would to a peer, they want to label their actions as "harassment".

I want to know, what's the harm in releasing your raw data to these folks?!

 

[TugboatEng]

In the USA, recently, it was argued that the public should not be privy to studies and other less processed forms of information should they come to the unapproved conclusion.

 

[Tomfh]

The warming trend in Australia is visible in the adjusted and unadjusted data,

True. But what he fails to mention (as they always do) is the warming trend is much greater in the adjusted data.

 

[Tomfh]

it was argued that the public should not be privy to studies and other less processed forms of information should they come to the unapproved conclusion.

That’s their general philosophy. Can’t have the public seeing data that might undermine confidence in the (politically) correct conclusion.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

In the USA, recently, it was argued that the public should not be privy to studies and other less processed forms of information should they come to the unapproved conclusion.

That's the type of attitude that the current "illuminati" is trying to make common. The masses are too stupid to understand that what we're telling them is for their own good. Honestly sounds like the attitude that communist governments used to take.... We know what's best. Once they control the information, it's a reasonably short trip from this to "If you disagree, then you need to be 're-educated' meaning sent to a camp or killed."

 

[Tomfh]

Yep. They respond to valid scientific criticism with all the character assassination they can muster.

You just know they would love to be able to do to “deniers” what was done to those who pointed out the flaws in Lysenko’s work.