I am led to understand that its a simple answer for those who know.

Lets see who the ‘knowers” and the believers are.

360,000,000/4,000 = 90,000 sq km per sensor
Average depth 3,000 m the sensors only dive to 2,000

On it’s face it is not covering. This is evidenced by recently finding a new ocean current as I noted. In the article linked the person interviewed noted how the new current add to the picture of ocean currents but that they have much to learn.
You cannot still have much to learn and have the science settled at the same time.

But then again you mussen’t let a simple calculation get in the way of a useful narrative.
I hope you enjoyed whatever it was you were imbibing.

Andrew_W: You are getting cranky and a bit insulting again. It does not do you credit, nor does serve to convince others of your stance.

I think it really is best that you go to bed and wake up refreshed and in good humor tomorrow. Better for you, and for the conversation here.

The human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is well understood, and there are several people who comment on BtB who are certainly well enough versed in the science involved to cover this. But will they? I doubt it, it’ll suit them better if they let me cover it, or allow you to continue with your misperceptions, rather than help you be better informed. Your lack of knowledge on this suits them.
It’s after 7pm here and I’m on my third glass, so best I address this in the morning . . . unless someone else is willing to risk damaging their anti-AGW credentials, which I doubt. Mussen’t let knowledge get in the way of a useful narrative. . .

I was looking at the OCO-2 data yesterday.
They have wonderful graphics showing their data in any number of ways.
But they NEVER explain exactly how they can differentiate between human created co2 and naturally created co2.
As far as I can tell they are just assuming a specific amount of all CO2 in the atmosphere in caused by humans. They then represent it in their graphs according to each areas population and use of fossil fuels.

No one believes it. The only people who believe in AGW stop using powered transportation, powered appliances at home and work (including lighting), or buying anything produced or delivered using power.

The Earth has, of course, been warming since the middle of the Little Ice Age, with a few pauses, so global warming itself is real, but we still have no evidence that human activity adds any measurable amount to this warming. You would think that after all this time some scientist would have been able to do so.

Chris noted: “And if the science is done then we need to stop all funding of this science”

Another sign that no one believes in AGW or believes that the science is settled.

I said: “the court case was not a trial of the science, and did not find the science at fault.”

Court ruling The plaintiff, Dr. Mann, and the defendant, Dr. Ball, have dramatically different opinions on climate change. I do not intend to address those differences. It is sufficient that one believes climate change is man-made and the other does not. As a result of the different opinions held, the two have been in near constant conflict for many years.

Chris Andrew do the math
I’ve been unable to find any papers making the claims of inadequate coverage that you do, can you offer any?

Trent Castanaveras You should leave the science to the experts.
I’m doing so, what expert studies are you basing your claims on?

You sir are correct. You should leave the science to the experts.

Chris–
Very interesting!

“If Physics Was Less of A Science”
2019
https://youtu.be/GFU3KpyreEk
2:09

“What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.”

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/michael-mann-refuses-to-produce-data-loses-case.php

We are still finding ocean currents (2018 article):
https://www.livescience.com/62275-new-ocean-current-madagascar.html
This is a “small but very important” current.
Argo was in place for years.

And do any or all these currents change over time? What were the currents before we could measure?
How would you know if you just found this new ocean current now?

We also seems to have miscounted the amount of forest we have.
https://newatlas.com/forest-discovered-plain-sight/49504/

What else don’t we know?
How does or did this affect the overall climate picture?
I don’t know and I don’t think anyone else does either, but a lot of “climate scientists” say they do. “The science is settled”

And if the science is done then we need to stop all funding of this science – since hey the science is done and it’s settled. No need for more funding. Move along citizen – nothing new to see here.

The point here is there is no one who can say QED. QED where anyone can look at the data, the equations and the theories and agree that there is causality (let alone correlation).

The key is anyone – not just the climate scientists need to be able to review the data and findings and agree. The science needs to stand on its own – it doesn’t. We cannot rely on the consensus of climate scientists telling us this or that.

Consensus is not proof.

You should read the Crichton piece I put above. His talk gives example after example of how science is being lax on critically reviewing its findings and very keen on publicity. It’s a show. And any who challenges the show are called names and publicly shamed for challenging. “Danger Will Robinson! Danger!”

Should we study the climate – absolutely. It is an important part of our existence. But we need to scientifically study it with the effort to discover what has occurred (as best we can) and what is now occurring; NOT prove a theory. Programs like the Argo system and satellite temperature observations are good things for trying to begin to understand what the climate is. However, stating that we know or begin to know now is foolish.

It just requires believers.

None of the communist nations believe it either. They are just saying they do in order to force America into accepting a theory that will totally destroy Americas economy.

Saying you believe it and doing something about it are two different things. Who is giving you the latest lip service?

Cotour, Mann’s methods and data are freely available, the court case was not a trial of the science, and did not find the science at fault.

Trent Castanaveras, I had a look through a few of the links, I didn’t find anything other than the usual amateur attacks on the mainstream position on AGW.
Here’s someone who will refute all the claims your preferred site makes:
https://scienceofdoom.com

Edward, There are four main inputs to climate that combine to result in the Earth’s average surface temperature: Anthropogenic forcings, Natural forcings, changes to wind affecting surface water distribution (eg ENSO) and thermal inertia, the early ’40’s warmth was a result of a strong El Nino, same with the recent “hiatus” which started with El Nino and had La Nina condtions at it’s end when the surface temperature trend resumed.
You fail to account for one of those inputs (as you do when you point to the 1940’s temperatures) and what has been observed doesn’t make sense.
It’s your standard game to try to refute AGW by suggesting that deviations caused by natural forcing or weather events disprove AGW. That’s been your game for years. Without including a substantial GHG forcing observation can’t be made to fit the physics.

Tom Tolan, “always in the service of larger, more intrusive government”. Like I said above, “skeptics” of the mainstream position always see an evil leftist agenda at work, the “skeptics” don’t recognize their own ideological agenda. Their logic requires thousands of people to be involved in a worldwide conspiracy, as does the logic of Flat Earthers, Moon Landing Deniers etc.

Whats the next date of no return?

And when we pass it and nothing happens watch the GW crowd take credit for the change.
Sort of like a christian taking credit because they prayed.

Climatology as a “science” came out of the environmental movement, most of whose organizations believe that humans are the cause of all ills. Any scientist who was willing to see where the science leads was drummed out early (or found real jobs in industry), so only the true believers made it into the educational system. And 90+% of those who choose climate “science” as a major really want to change the world – changing your belief as to cause, to one in which nature is the primary driver, is a major emotional crisis, one to be avoided at all costs. Any that really want to know the science are convinced to leave the major by their 2nd year, so they never get the title.

And the “experts” are only those with “climatology” degrees – chemists, physicists, and engineers need not be considered, even though climatology is one of the simpler sciences from a data interpretation standpoint.

As a satellite solar array engineer, energy fluxes drove my designs. Solar input (by frequency), Earth Albedo (shifted frequencies), and Earth emissivity (thermal frequencies) are all part of the energy balance (especially in Low Earth Orbit). So yes, I am an Expert in climatology, at least at the global scale. And I have looked at the data, and the data manipulation performed by the AGW fanatics – always in the service of larger, more intrusive government, and often easily identified. It is clear to me based on the data, that much of the 20th century was of multiple solar cycles destructively interfering (keeping climate stable), a period which we are out of, and we will likely see multi-decade long warming trends followed by multi-decade long cooling trends, a pattern which will continue for a couple of hundred years until the next period of overlapping cycles stabilized the climate for another 60 year period. These patterns have been happening for all of human history, and can be seen both in sediment cores and in human history of civilizations.

Humans have some small impact on climate, which will be taken by AGW fanatics as proof of their position, even if it is only a second or 3rd order phenomenon compared to the astronomical impacts on climate. But, since climatology is to the big government religion as intelligent design is to extreme christian theology, it is almost impossible to change the mind of anyone willing to engage in a “discussion” (which is really them just telling you why you’re wrong, and not listening to you explain to them what the science says).

Here you go: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/tag/Greatest+Scientific+Fraud

This is a blog with many many links to the unaltered data, with statistical and scientific analysis of all. SCIENCE!

Educate yourself. Do your own research. There are study after study out there for perusal. Keep in mind that the scientific method is INHERENTLY SKEPTICAL. That’s why we call them hypotheses and theories instead of facts.

My favorite scientific statement: “What we THINK we know is…”

Side note: No one believes that we are doing absolutely nothing to affect the outcome of climate. That would be silly. What we are saying, and showing through data and math, is that the effect is so minuscule that our measurement tools can’t pick it out from the background drivers of climate.

Enjoy!

Ref; Crichton, ok, yeah, it’s the transcript, to the video…
(the memory, is the first to go!)

I am an electrical engineer. The last 15 or so years of my career I was an engineering manager with multiple disciplines in my group. This let the really smart people do the engineering and gave me something else to do.

What type of Engineer are you?

https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf

Global temperatures began to drop again 75 years ago, causing scientists to proclaim the that the next Ice Age was on its way, once again demonstrating that there is no correlation between anthropogenic CO2 generation and global temperatures.

Half a century ago, soon after the scientists warned of the coming Ice Age, temperatures began to rise again, demonstrating an anti-correlation between scientific conclusions and climate, but causing scientists to warn of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) — despite a lack of science to support the claim. No wonder there are so many skeptics; the climatologists clearly don’t have a handle on the subject but are insisting that they have knowledge that they obviously lack.

A few years and a Kyoto Accord later, temperatures stopped rising, yet again demonstrating that there is no correlation between anthropogenic CO2 generation and global temperatures, but instead causing 1) a change in nomenclature from AGW to anthropogenic climate change (as though stable temperature means change in climate), 2) scientists making wild and unsupported claims as to where the heat was “hiding,” and 3) unannounced, unexplained modifications to past temperature records — the very definition of fudged data. What the stable temperatures should have caused was celebration that the Kyoto Accords worked and that we are all saved from doom and hellish Earthly heat. Yay! Instead we learned, or should have learned, that we cannot trust these scientists or their data.

I, too, am an engineer. I built a satellite instrument that measured one form of energy flux coming from the Earth and worked on two that measured some of the flux falling onto the Earth, to refine knowledge of the Earth’s energy balance, making me far closer to being a climate scientist than anyone with whom I have ever argued global warming or climate change. But they all think that they know better — that they are the experts on the topic — because Al Gore made a movie and a hundred million dollars selling carbon credits. The latest one I argued with is so scientifically illiterate that she didn’t know that a proton has a positive charge and thought that a neutron had a negative charge. But she still thinks that she is right and I am wrong, because everyone knows that global warming — er — climate change is real, and to disagree is to be wrong, so shut up! https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/midnight-repost-what-ever-you-do-dont-shut-up/

On the sensors…
Do the math on sensors vs area and esp depth of ocean.

Not enough sensors.
Looking forward to your evidence supporting that claim.

You can’t.

I stand by my statement -as written.

Argo – has 3000 sensors going 2000 m deep and TRYING to cover 360,000,000 square km of ocean surface with an average depth of 3000-4000 m.
Not enough sensors.

Next