RayProudfoot wrote: ↑Thu 16 May 2024 1:05 pm
For the record I see a levelling out over recent years. Does that make me a denier?
This way of expressing yourself - some passive aggressiveness - kind of answers your own question: yes you are a denier.
But let's try to be factual:
- Please look at this page by NASA
- This shows a (global!) increase of 1 degree Celsius since 1970. So in 53 years that means an average of 0.0188 degree Celsius/year.
- If you look at the chart you see major fluctuations on a global scale between years which go beyond that increase per year. So locally that difference might even be larger. What is missing is the statistics here.
- To argue well, you would need to do some statistics to at least 4 decimals on the average per year
- In the four full years of my own station you also see an almost flat line but the values are: 2020: 10.79 °C; 2023: 11.00 °C which is 0.0525 °C/year (please set cursor on the line points to see the value). And I refuse to draw conclusions from that other than that visual inspection does not do math. Had the series been longer - e.g. > 10 yrs - I might have seen that as a local confirmation of what is happening.
- You have significant fluctuation in your chart so it may be whatever may influence amateur weather stations but I won't take that into the argument assuming that weather amateurs going into a discussion on the basis of their data do anything to get as close to reality as possible. But if we seriously start discussing, that would be something to discuss first.
- You argue on the basis of a chart which the reader must visually inspect. Visual inspection of a chart like that is not the best means to determine something like Climate Change which has a resolution of 0,01 °C which is much smaller that what we can see on the chart.
I could continue arguing like this but I won't: series like these (not yours, not mine) do not prove or disprove climate change. Climate change is calculated on a global scale and there is a really large chunk of statistics behind it. In fact science does not really debate IF the climate changes (that discussion has past) but HOW FAST and by HOW MUCH.
And please note:
my post on the temperature sum does not take the average but the year sum as an argument as that is much easier to interpret. Compare this e.g. to
the arctic ice area on a yearly basis where the last 12 years minimum are all below the -2 sigma value ... anyway, look at it yourself.
But even then, that would argue only on the amount of change in that series (11 years in San Sebastian) in that location, that it fits the bill of climate change. It could never serve as PROOF for climate change.
And you guess right: I am not a denier. But I am not a believer either. I just like numbers versus what e.g. NASA says. Climate Change is not about belief or denial. It is about numbers and the 'fun' of seeing that in your own backyard (assuming you are not too sheltered).
[Edit:] I corrected some errors on 17/5/24 @07:00
