This latest alarmist rhetoric provides a textbook example of how not to communicate climate science. These headlines do nothing to raise public awareness, let alone influence public policy to support climate solutions.

Good
https://phys.org/news/2023-08-degrowth-rich-economies-climate-flawed.html

More
https://phys.org/news/2023-08-scientists-planetary-affect-atmospheric-dynamics.html

I can’t believe this is in phys.org
https://phys.org/news/2023-08-spirit-mediums-tourism-secrets.html
https://phys.org/news/2023-08-trump-accountable-threaten-american-democracy.html

Book on Science ‘trust”
https://phys.org/news/2023-07-distinction-genuine-scientific-skepticism-dogmatic.html

That would probably put them in arbitrary locations, not random ones. How are they controlled to remain in deep water (again, not random locations) so that they can probe the depths? If your probe is going to occasionally dive to 2,000 meters, it won’t get there if it is in shallower waters. If it is to “park” and drift at 1,000 meters, how does it do this if it is in shallower water? If they spend a majority of their time at depth, how are shallower parts of the ocean explored? Argo does not seem to be the random sampler that some people seem to think.

“Also, I think that our education process has also failed in that the desire for full pursuit of the truth”

That could be. Truth is difficult to accept, especially when you want to live in a fantasy world that is kinder and gentler than the real world. “Let’s just ignore that saber-toothed tiger, over there. It is too scary.” As one Hollywood movie famously shouted, “You can’t handle the truth!”

“Mike Bright, EE professor at Grove City college once said (I personally heard it), ‘the engineer pursues Truth.’ and to paraphrase ‘he is interested in finding the the truth above all.’”

You bet he is! If the engineer bases his gizmo on something else, it probably won’t work as intended. For the engineer, reality is a harsh master, and truth is an equally harsh mistress, dominator and dominatrix, cruelly punishing the engineer if he does not obey reality and truth.

If something is impossible, it is impossible. However, an engineer can work to find ways around the impossible parts to make something similar happen, still within the boundaries of truth and reality. Making it happen is where the engineer gets his funding and recognition.

We who read Behind The Black have been watching reality bite the butts of several space companies, especially the launch service companies. They are hard at work finding ways around the harsh realities of the difficulties and dangers of getting into space, operating in space, and returning from space. Mother Nature is not kind to those who do not follow her rules, and we all keep discovering new rules or aspects of known rules when we try something new or different.

“Often scientists are interested in, and trained and driven toward, the recognition, and the funding that that recognition brings. Perhaps they think after funded – then they can then go to find the truth. But once off the path, the addiction has taken hold, and perhaps the pursuit of the truth can never be truly regained.”

Under Lysenkoism, the recognition and funding come from kowtowing to those who supply the funding. The truth is that science is a publish or perish world, but the publishers tend to not punish when the paper is wrong or fudged. Who has punished NASA or NOAA for blatantly fudging the historical world average temperature datasets? They aren’t even publicly criticized. How many people even know that these datasets are fudged, that climate science is now destroyed into the realm of uselessness?

In the world of science — the modern The Science (which has been settled), there is no incentive to regain truth, but there is incentive to ignore it, to hold truth in abeyance, to ignore the tiger.

“(sorry assuming sex – I’ll switch it up later)”

You are just using the English language. Sex is not assumed, the male pronoun is diluted by using it in cases of unknown sex. When “she” is used, it is always female. When “he” is used, knowledge of the subject’s sex can only come from context. That is the reality. That is the truth. Switching it up only confuses the communication. Using pretend pronouns is even worse and demonstrates that those who cannot handle the truth or cannot handle the reality don’t really care to communicate their fantasy worlds, either.

“Sorry stream of consciousness.”

Sorry. Stream of conscious response to stream of consciousness.

Also, on the love of theory…
I think we may have lost rigor, or the love of rigor.

Also, I think that our education process has also failed in that the desire for full pursuit of the truth – wherever it takes you – has been lowered in priority or possibly lost for the (temporary) illusion of finding the truth.
Mike Bright, EE professor at Grove City college once said (I personally heard it), “the engineer pursues Truth.” and to paraphrase “he is interested in finding the the truth above all.”
I think between the loss of the love of truth, traded for the love of fame, funding, recognition, or something else other than truth and the loss of enjoying the rigor, I think science has been put on hold in many cases.

Often scientists are interested in, and trained and driven toward, the recognition, and the funding that that recognition brings. Perhaps they think after funded – then they can then go to find the truth. But once off the path, the addiction has taken hold, and perhaps the pursuit of the truth can never be truly regained.

In putting forth a new hypothesis and possibly data to support this, the Pursuer of Truth welcomes all who would criticize and question so that that his (sorry assuming sex – I’ll switch it up later) rigor has already answered any challenge. And, if incorrect, she hopes the incorrect parts are caught such that the understanding of the Truth is not soiled.
Miyamoto Musashi once is noted as saying: “Greet your opponent as a welcome guest – he defines you” Our science community should also welcome the honest criticism of their hypotheses, techniques, data and results with the desire to be challenged. Without challenge the Pursuit of Truth can never be undertaken.

Sorry stream of consciousness.

Statisticians sometimes take samples of their previous sample populations and use those as a shortcut to determine estimates of the whole. For those cases, they must first understand the first sample populations of the whole in order to evaluate the meaning of the samples of those samples, otherwise the shortcut becomes meaningless. All too often, the assumption is that the whole is adequately described by the first samples of that whole, and the further assumption is that the second (once-removed) samples are also an adequate representation of the first samples, making them suitable to describe the whole. In the case of the Argo sensors, they do not yet know enough of what their measurements mean to be able to sample a portion of their population to determine any information about the whole ocean(s).

The uncertainty of science meets the uncertainty of statistics, and The Scientists tell us conclusions with such great certainty of The Science (which for climate change has been declared to be settled) that we are required to follow climate-saving decrees from politicians who don’t even understand the reasons for The Scientists’ recommendations. (Why do we have these Scientists, since The Science has been declared settled? What are they studying, and why?)

And don’t get me started on the value of p-values. High values may mean that the data does not give good information to solve the problem, but low p-values also do not mean that the scientist’s conclusions — the cause to the observed effect — is meaningful. Most scientists seem to believe that the converse to the large p-value is true, but it is not. If A then B does not necessarily mean If B then A. A high p-value may mean that the conclusion is not worth much, but a low p-value does not necessarily mean that the conclusion has value.

Why do scientists fall for this fallacy? Probably because they are desperate to find something that confirms their theory, and they found something that sounds good, so they cling to it like Titanic passengers to their life vests. (Oh, rats. I got started on p-values and triggered myself. *** BELATED TRIGGER ALERT ***)

The love of theory is the root of all scientific evil.

If you take 4000 samples off the northern coast of Hawaii, for example, then you have a difference in measurements of close to the same thing. Your error bars can be something other than the precision of your instruments. An area in which you have measurements can differ by some amount. You might extrapolate that to all the other sites, but you could not be sure that the extrapolation is correct for any other site. For example: San Francisco can have dramatic temperature changes from place to place in the city, but if you are using your error bars from your measurements in a similar 49 square mile area in the Death Valley, you could be in error about your error bars in San Francisco.

If you take 4000 samples around the planet, then you know very little about each location to know what your error may be. You might put in error bars, but you don’t know that they are correct.

Either way, we still know too little about sea/air/land interactions to turn our data into much useful information. It is one of the reasons that climate science is not settled.

“However, starting with an end in mind and re-working experiments, data …whatever to try to prove that end, well that’s not science.”

Some might call it Lysenkoism. The reports may walk like science and they may talk like science, but they are not science. They are not even confirmation bias. They are fudged.

“It is as though they don’t realize that they were admitting to the faulty models. It is as though they are biased in their theories and want a specific outcome, and make up reasons why reality does not match their theory.” I am not sure of this but it looks like a possibility.

Andrew_W
“If you take a random sample of 4000 from a much larger population, whether that larger population is 4,000,000 or 4,000,000,000,000 makes little difference to the error bars.”
My question is did we sample the population – it seem like we don’t have anywhere near enough sensors. Sampling in one place over such a vast area 32K sq mi does not cover. I don’t think we know much here, we need more sensors.

“There’s little movement in the deep ocean”
This is a possibility but I doubt we have much actual data here. – I don’t know; we don’t know

“do you think that the imbalance between Earth’s inward and outgoing radiation is greater than believed and that there’s more excess heat being stored in the oceans below 2,000m?
If there is it would be revealed in faster SLR.”

So I don’t know if saltwater under tremendous pressure acts this way but water at normal atmospheric pressure does some interesting things as it is cooled. At around 37F (I think) it stops contracting and starts expanding. My high school biology teacher said this may have allowed life to survive on the early earth where ponds would create an insulation gap from the expanding ice.
So the increase in temp on the deep saltwater *may* cause it to contract if is in this zone and cause ocean level lowering.
But I don’t know,

See saying I don’t know is OK. It doesn’t mean I gave up or have bad morals.
However, starting with an end in mind and re-working experiments, data …whatever to try to prove that end, well that’s not science.

By making the claim that the heat was going into the oceans, they were admitting that their models did not account for this possible heat sink. They were admitting to faulty models.

Strangely, they still use the same models to predict future Earthly average temperatures. It is as though they don’t realize that they were admitting to the faulty models. It is as though they are biased in their theories and want a specific outcome, and make up reasons why reality does not match their theory.

This would explain why they fudged the historical average temperature datasets. They have such a love for their theory that they are not willing to examine any other possibilities. Which would explain why they insist on silencing anyone who presents another possibility or even questions their beloved theory.

The love of theory is the root of all scientific evil.

There’s little movement in the deep ocean, and I’m not sure why the temperatures at such depth concerns you, do you think that the imbalance between Earth’s inward and outgoing radiation is greater than believed and that there’s more excess heat being stored in the oceans below 2,000m?
If there is it would be revealed in faster SLR.

Why can’t we say we don’t know?

We need to try to measure this and much more, but we do not have the sensors or the data.
We also need to explore and measure without pre-conclusions in mind.

We don’t know. Why is it hard to say this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)

Chris: The scientist who posted this graph, Roy Spencer, has been the principal investigator for orbiting climate satellites. I suspect that the data he cites is satellite data, which covers the globe.

Having said that, I actually agree with you. There are so many gaps in the climate data that anyone claiming any real and far-reaching certain knowledge and the ability to predict what the climate is going to do is committing an act of outright lying.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2023/07/08/about-that-claim-that-july-3-4-were-the-hottest-days-on-record-n1709061

The research shows that 96% of these stations are corrupted by localized effects of urbanization – producing heat-bias because of their close proximity to asphalt, machinery, and other heat-producing, heat-trapping, or heat-accentuating objects. Placing temperature stations in such locations violates NOAA’s own published standards (see section 3.1 at this link), and strongly undermines the legitimacy and the magnitude of the official consensus on long-term climate warming trends in the United States.

___________
judd wrote: “The NOAA data are falsified …”

I wrote to my friend, in part:
“In addition, the article mentions temperature.global as a source of information, but it is not an official government data repository. NOAA and NASA are two such official repositories. But a decade ago, they modified the historical average temperature record without explanation, without telling anyone, and in a way that supported their preconceived theories. The only way that anyone found out about the changed data was that researchers noticed significant and serious differences between previous datasets and the next release of the same data. When I was in school, this was the very definition of fudged data.

“Of course, changing the data means that all papers that had relied upon the previous data are now wrong. Unless the change was the wrong thing to do, in which case all modern papers that rely upon the changed data are wrong. Either way, climate science has been completely destroyed and should be seen as the discredited science that it now is.

“But then, they try to convince us that The Science is settled. If it is settled, then why are there still scientists studying it?“

I can’t see how anyone can claim any knowledge – today – let alone predict anything in the future.

judd: Which means that the models are even more wrong.

https://www.sigma3ioc.com/post/viveck-ramaswamy-a-friend-of-the-world-economic-form-oh-no

Its all related.