How do the scientists get that global temperature, is it just made up?
ChatGPT said:
Great question — and no, it’s
not made up. Scientists calculate global temperature using
many independent measurements and methods, then combine them. Here’s the basic process:
- Thermometers on land
- Weather stations all over the world record daily temperatures.
- Records go back over 150 years in many places.
- Ocean measurements
- Ships and floating buoys measure sea surface temperature.
- Today, thousands of robotic floats (“ARGO” floats) drift in the oceans, sending back precise temperature data from different depths.
- Satellites
- Satellites measure infrared radiation to estimate atmospheric and surface temperatures.
- These provide global coverage, even over oceans and remote areas.
- Combining the data
- Independent groups (NASA, NOAA, UK Met Office, Japan Meteorological Agency, etc.) all compile the data separately.
- They adjust for known biases (e.g., if a city grew around a weather station, or if ships changed how they measured water).
- Despite different methods, they all show the same warming trend.
- Cross-checking with nature
- Ice cores, tree rings, corals, and glacier records also confirm long-term warming.
So instead of one thermometer, it’s like having
millions of thermometers and satellites working together, and different teams worldwide checking each other’s work.
--
No one said "doomed", those are **your** favorite words to make is seem like the science is flawed. And if you read my previous post, yes,.1.5 degrees C can make a difference.
How do you explain this to someone who does not believe but has a degree in mathematics?
ChatGPT said:
Perfect — if your friend has a
math background, the best approach is to explain it in terms of
data, measurement, and signal vs. noise, without appeals to politics. Here’s how you can frame it:
1.
- Multiple groups (NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT in the UK, Japan Meteorological Agency, Berkeley Earth) collect and process data independently.
- Despite using different methodologies, the same signal emerges: ~1.2 °C of warming since the late 1800s.
- If it were fabricated, you’d expect large discrepancies, but the convergence across datasets suggests robustness.
2.
- Weather fluctuates daily (noise), but climate is the long-term average.
- The “global temperature anomaly” is calculated relative to a baseline (e.g., 1951–1980 average).
- Statistically, the warming trend is well above random variation and far exceeds error bars.
3.
- Each dataset provides uncertainty bands (±0.1–0.2 °C in recent decades).
- The observed warming (~1.2 °C) is 6–12× larger than the uncertainty margin — mathematically, it’s highly significant.
4.
- Glacier retreat, rising sea levels, ocean heat content, and satellite measurements of Earth’s radiation balance all align with the warming trend.
- These are independent physical systems, not just thermometer readings.
5.
- Imagine a stock price with daily volatility (noise). If over decades the moving average trends upward, it’s not random — it’s a statistically significant drift.
- Climate data is similar: the “trend line” of global temperature anomalies rises steadily despite short-term variability.
In short:
the warming trend is a statistically significant signal observed across multiple independent datasets and physical systems. A mathematician should appreciate that the chance of this being coincidence or fabrication is vanishingly small.
nypost.com
