4 ms·

I would think us engineers would appreciate the complexity of accurately measuring total net energy absorbed by a whole damn planet. It's not just raw temperatu

I would think us engineers would appreciate the complexity of accurately measuring total net energy absorbed by a whole damn planet. It's not just raw temperature readings from buoys. Incremental improvement of models and some debate to sort out the reasons for temporary inconsistencies is to be expected in science. None of this is really any excuse to be doubting climate change in general, or the severity thereof. All of that is just politics, not science. Scientists know that our models are just as likely to underestimate the effects of climate change as they are to overestimate them. It is only politically motivated opinionistas that focus exclusively on one of those possibilities.

refurb 6y ago
I had a career in science so I completely understand how models that predict the future are refined over time, that isn't concerning at all. Saying "we predict temperatures will rise between 0.5C and 2.0C this century" is just smart science. But my comment isn't around a future prediction, this is measuring the temperature right now. You mention "the complexity of accurately measuring total net energy absorbed by a whole damn planet", which I can understand is complex, but ignore "net energy absorption" for now, let's just focus on "what was the average temperature last year". Would I be correct saying we're still not sure how best to get that data?
- Johnjonjoan 6y ago
  The best way to get the data would be to measure how much energy the planet absorbs vs how much it emits. The earth just wants to be in equilibrium so if these amounts aren't equal the climate is changing and the difference can tell you to what degree (excuse the pun). The problem is that the earth transfers energy between many of its systems (think Ocean conveyor belt) and it's incredibly difficult to keep track of the energy. So any measurements of the earth directly that don't measure all the systems are likely to be inaccurate. Edit: yes there is a global average surface temperature but due to the reasons above it's not a great indicator.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

refurb 6y ago

I had a career in science so I completely understand how models that predict the future are refined over time, that isn't concerning at all. Saying "we predict temperatures will rise between 0.5C and 2.0C this century" is just smart science. But my comment isn't around a future prediction, this is measuring the temperature right now. You mention "the complexity of accurately measuring total net energy absorbed by a whole damn planet", which I can understand is complex, but ignore "net energy absorption" for now, let's just focus on "what was the average temperature last year". Would I be correct saying we're still not sure how best to get that data?

Johnjonjoan 6y ago
The best way to get the data would be to measure how much energy the planet absorbs vs how much it emits. The earth just wants to be in equilibrium so if these amounts aren't equal the climate is changing and the difference can tell you to what degree (excuse the pun). The problem is that the earth transfers energy between many of its systems (think Ocean conveyor belt) and it's incredibly difficult to keep track of the energy. So any measurements of the earth directly that don't measure all the systems are likely to be inaccurate. Edit: yes there is a global average surface temperature but due to the reasons above it's not a great indicator.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]