
More Than 150 'Unprecedented' Climate Disasters Struck World in 2024, Says UN (theguardian.com) 126
The devastating impacts of the climate crisis reached new heights in 2024, with scores of unprecedented heatwaves, floods and storms across the globe, according to the UN's World Meteorological Organization. From a report: The WMO's report on 2024, the hottest year on record, sets out a trail of destruction from extreme weather that took lives, demolished buildings and ravaged vital crops. More than 800,000 people were displaced and made homeless, the highest yearly number since records began in 2008.
The report lists 151 unprecedented extreme weather events in 2024, meaning they were worse than any ever recorded in the region. Heatwaves in Japan left hundreds of thousands of people struck down by heatstroke. Soaring temperatures during heatwaves peaked at 49.9C at Carnarvon in Western Australia, 49.7C in the city of Tabas in Iran, and 48.5C in a nationwide heatwave in Mali.
Record rains in Italy led to floods, landslides and electricity blackouts; torrents destroyed thousands of homes in Senegal; and flash floods in Pakistan and Brazil caused major crop losses.
Storms were also supercharged by global heating in 2024, with an unprecedented six typhoons in under a month hitting the Philippines. Hurricane Helene was the strongest ever recorded to strike the Big Bend region of Florida in the US, while Vietnam was hit by Super Typhoon Yagi, affecting 3.6 million people. Many more unprecedented events will have passed unrecorded.
The report lists 151 unprecedented extreme weather events in 2024, meaning they were worse than any ever recorded in the region. Heatwaves in Japan left hundreds of thousands of people struck down by heatstroke. Soaring temperatures during heatwaves peaked at 49.9C at Carnarvon in Western Australia, 49.7C in the city of Tabas in Iran, and 48.5C in a nationwide heatwave in Mali.
Record rains in Italy led to floods, landslides and electricity blackouts; torrents destroyed thousands of homes in Senegal; and flash floods in Pakistan and Brazil caused major crop losses.
Storms were also supercharged by global heating in 2024, with an unprecedented six typhoons in under a month hitting the Philippines. Hurricane Helene was the strongest ever recorded to strike the Big Bend region of Florida in the US, while Vietnam was hit by Super Typhoon Yagi, affecting 3.6 million people. Many more unprecedented events will have passed unrecorded.
Disasters of Biblical Proportions! (Score:5, Funny)
Real wrath of God type stuff: fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, and seas boiling, 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
Sorry, couldn't resist ...
Re: (Score:2)
I love that rant. A long time buddy of mine and I use the "...dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!" part of the line with each other still to this day.
"Lies, damn lies, and statistics". Mark Twain (Score:1)
Re: "Lies, damn lies, and statistics". Mark Twain (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Disasters of Biblical Proportions! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By nonsense do you mean you have data that contradicts the data he gives to support his articles?
Yes. The data is widely available.
No? I wonder why?
Incorrect. The answer is the data is widely available. No, I am not going to give you links - learn to read research papers.
Re: Disasters of Biblical Proportions! (Score:2)
Re: Disasters of Biblical Proportions! (Score:2)
Re: Disasters of Biblical Proportions! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Meanwhile on slashdot (Score:2)
Except it wasn't.
Home 1: back in the 80s we had snow from late November until late March, now it snowed twice, once mid-January, once in February. Snow kept on the ground for a week or two.
Home 2, 9000km from home 1: 30 years ago we had snow from the middle of January until late February, now if it snows once during the "winter months" we're lucky.
Home 3, further 12 degrees South from home 2: haven't seen snow in 15 years, getting used to 22-25C around Christmas and New Year.
I'm dreading the coming summer e
Re: (Score:2)
Who is profiting? I want names.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Who is profiting? I want names.
You really think you're going to get a coherent answer to that? At best, you will just get some idiot yelling about Hunter Biden's laptop.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Who is profiting? I want names.
Start with the Fortune 100. End with your own gross insurance costs.
You act as if it’s hard to find the Disease of Greed. You are part of the race infected by it.
(Humans aren’t even smart enough to avoid repeating the worst of our own history, so no. No one’s looking for a cure.)
Re: (Score:2)
You think this was profitable for insurance companies?
Re: (Score:2)
You think this was profitable for insurance companies?
When I bought a house 30 miles north of where I was living at the time, I was told by my insurance company that the area was “known” for sinkholes, and therefore justified the premium price I was being bent over and quoted on.
I decided to dig into the history of sinkholes in my area. I found out a 2-foot by 2-foot hole located miles from my home “opened up” 15 years prior. With no further reports found.
Insurance can and will make a profit off every damn thing. And let’s stop
Re: (Score:1)
this is why you and the OP are just not serious people and can be safely ignored
"say vague thing"
"can you be specific"
"did you hear VAGUE THING?! im not gonna clarify. VAGUE THING should be obvious by how completely broad, useless and un-actionable it is"
like you cant even define a problem and when asked you say "every large corporation is greedy" and we are supposed to do what with that information? i have toilet paper to wipe my ass with already, it's worth more than whatever you're saying
Name a Fortune 100 company that hasn’t gotten rich off abusing every loophole they helped create to justify the entire reason we have a fucking list tracking the greediest of greedy, and I’ll shut the fuck up. Otherwise, you got your specific answer. ALL of them got to where they are in Capitalism by abusing every resource known to man, including man (and woman).
I also already educated you on why you can’t DO anything with that information. The Disease of Greed has plagued our species f
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Here you go [yahoo.com], specific names and their salaries.
Re: And each one was very profitable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Learn the difference between what you wish to be and what is.
Re: (Score:2)
It still erased your mod...
Not unprecedented (Score:5, Informative)
All but 15 of the 152 are "heat wave". I picked one of the heat waves at random... Japan..
"The seasonal anomaly of the average temperature over Japan was +1.76ÂC in summer (June - August), tied with 2023 as the warmest for the season since 1898. It was +1.97ÂC in autumn (September - November), setting the warmest for the season since 1898. "
So actual Summer heat is tied with 2023... already not unprecedented. Autumn temps count as a "heat wave" not because of scorching unbearable heat but because the average during Fall time is higher than the average since records began for Fall time. This does not comport to common public understanding of what heat wave means.
There is enough actual credible evidence of global warming / climate change. There is no need to pile on... all this does is piss away your credibility and integrity and by extension the credibility of the overall cause for nothing.
Re: (Score:1)
Every disaster a climate disaster (Score:2)
We need more climate disasters!
Re:Every disaster a climate disaster (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we do. We should see the peaches of Georgia shrivel on the limb from excessive heat and no rain, the wheat fields of Kansas and Nebraska shrivel and die in a dust bowl, the shrimp farmers in Louisiana come up empty, and the corn fields of Illinois have stubs so we can spend more taxpayer money propping up farmers for an issue we've been told about but keep claiming doesn't exist.
This is the literal example of an admin telling the higher ups about a security issue, but which is ignored, until the security issue becomes a breach, at which point the higher ups will look around and ask why no one told them while they're spending five times the amount to mitigate the issue compared to them having addressed the issue.
Re: Every disaster a climate disaster (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the literal example of an admin telling the higher ups about a security issue, but which is ignored, until the security issue becomes a breach, at which point the higher ups will look around and ask why no one told them while they're spending five times the amount to mitigate the issue compared to them having addressed the issue.
I get your analogy, but I think there are many instances with climate change that are more akin to having your network compromised and causing more problems to others than to yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
Because mature chickens will lay an egg per day while a mature turkey will lay an egg per week. Simply, we get more eggs from chickens than other species. I suspect that selective breeding had something to do with getting chickens that lay more eggs and that if we wanted then we might be able to get some equivalent amount of eggs from turkeys. But why would we want to? We have productive chickens now and getting similarly productive turkeys could take years. If this shortage of eggs dragged on long eno
Re: (Score:2)
Burgers and Beer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have clean selenium free water. Between the vanishing glaciers and the new coal mines, that clean water is not a given.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an obvious solution, and that is to produce less, and stop the constant economic growth for the sake of economic growth. But every side of the political spectrum won't accept that. Just look at cry's of doom and gloom when the stock market goes down, and that's just rich people thinking that the economy might get worse. The problem is we want a solution without loosing anything, well that's probably not going to happen until its forced upon us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Also, it's "losing" not "loosing [sic]".
It is honestly not our fault that some idiot wrote the words wrong into the dictionary, and no one has the guts to point it out and make them fix it!
Re: Every disaster a climate disaster (Score:4, Interesting)
The quest for constant economic growth does seem to be a borderline religion amongst economists these days without explaining why constantly buying ever more crap that eventually ends up in landfill is the only economic model that should be followed.
Re: (Score:2)
without explaining why constantly buying ever more crap that eventually ends up in landfill is the only economic model that should be followed.
Thats not true, how would bitcoin wind up in a landfil.. No, wait there was that one guy who’s now trying to buy the landfill because of the discarded bitcoin. Carry on.
Re: (Score:3)
Debt. That is the reason.
Debt based economic system. FIAT money.
You need to inflate the debt away or the whole economy comes crashing down.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's in fashion to downplay it all. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it's fun to downplay each weather event as unimportant and not at all related to climate, but I live in an area where 50-60 mph wind gusts were a rare, maybe twice a year brief occurrence, and where it's now a bi-weekly event. Storms are more powerful and more frequent. How many of these events does it take for the "there is no climate change" folks to realize, uh, weather trends that continue to change year over year for decades on end actually does sorta lead us to conclude that there is actually climate change? If it were isolated to only us, and nowhere else was seeing any of these changes, I'd probably feel differently about it, but I don't think shoving our fingers in our ears and screaming it's not real is doing us a lot of good.
Do I think some people have turned climate change into profitable industry to a sickening degree? Yes, absolutely, and they should be called out for it. But I also think it's something very real that we should address. Just because we have a scam based economy right now doesn't mean that every scammer isn't started with a kernel of truth to build their scam. Ever great scam starts with a kernel of reality, then spins the web of lies on top of it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How about:
"Do I think some people have turned climate change denial into profitable industry to a sickening degree?"
Hell, Mr. "Drill Baby Drill" Trump got elected President of the USA on a platform including climate denial.
Re: (Score:2)
How about: "Do I think some people have turned climate change denial into profitable industry to a sickening degree?" Hell, Mr. "Drill Baby Drill" Trump got elected President of the USA on a platform including climate denial.
Is this meant as some sort of dig against my point? There are for-profit industrialists using climate change for profit. There's also an alarming amount of climate change denialism. Those two things are both true.
One thing we can say about American society? It's scams built on denialism all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I know it's in fashion to downplay it all. (Score:4, Interesting)
Then I made snow angels in Austin fucking Texas in 2021 when it was 14 F.
Climate shit is really broken because of jetstream stability damage due to a massive amount of increased net absorbed energy in the Arctic Sea region due to temperature rise. Anyone denying reality now and not making it a priority is either a moron or profiteering from it.
Re: (Score:1)
It is not jet streams, it is the artic vortex. Related but different things. The jet streams are so high, they do not affect the temperature on the surface such extremely. And they have that name for a reason ... wind streams with speeds in the 400knots range.
Re: (Score:2)
Iceland may meet your criteria?
I know it's a corner case, but I think their geothermal situation allowed them to do so.
Re: (Score:1)
I believe those refusing to allow nuclear fission as a source of energy are the largest deniers of global warming.
That's a remarkly facile - and inaccurate - thing to say
The reality is that renewable power is growing so quickly that if you don't already have reactor construction well underway right now, renewable energy will render it redundant. For example - Australia does not have a nuclear industry at all (we used to have a research and medical isotope reactor but it closed down); in the coming Federal election, the opposition party have a policy to build half a dozen or more power reactors, claiming that the first two will be online by the mid 30s and the rest during the 2040s, and that they will reduce power bills. History tells us that neither will be true - and that's before you even compare the inroads that various forms of renewable energy are making to the mix, and the continued research into renewable energy.
The numbers might be different in countries that already have nuclear power, but I don't really think so.
Re: (Score:1)
The reality is that renewable power is growing so quickly that if you don't already have reactor construction well underway right now, renewable energy will render it redundant.
I find that difficult to believe. We see in Japan and South Korea that a new BWR can be built in under 5 years, and just exceeding 3 years when properly motivated. Nuclear power will be redundant in 5 years? All over the world?
For example - Australia does not have a nuclear industry at all (we used to have a research and medical isotope reactor but it closed down); in the coming Federal election, the opposition party have a policy to build half a dozen or more power reactors, claiming that the first two will be online by the mid 30s and the rest during the 2040s, and that they will reduce power bills.
Australia no longer has any operating nuclear reactors? That's unfortunate given that so many people could get improved diagnosis and treatment with medical isotopes produced by nuclear fission.
I've seen reports that utility supplied electricity rates have gotten so high recently
Re: (Score:2)
> Putting fear of nuclear power above that of fear of global warming sounds like a denial of global warming to me. Or at least a denial that global warming poses any serious threat.
First a disclaimer: I do agree that most anti-fission people are just "whaah nuclear" idiots who don't understand risk management.
Now the argument : it depends on the time frame and outcomes looked at. There are many people who, precisely because of climate change, doubt that industrial civilization will make it past this cent
weather records (Score:2)
So can you point me to the weather records (ideally max windspeed each day ) for the last few decades for your area. That really seems quite an incredible (literally) change, and would be well worth studying. or let me guess, crickets.
Re: (Score:2)
So can you point me to the weather records (ideally max windspeed each day ) for the last few decades for your area. That really seems quite an incredible (literally) change, and would be well worth studying. or let me guess, crickets.
Having lived it, I don't have records off-hand. You can poke around the national weather service for Sioux Falls or South Dakota, where you can literally scroll through individual days, or individual years, and get "average wind speeds," but I'm honestly having trouble finding recorded "highest gust speeds by year" or anything resembling it. I'll do more poking around and see if I can come up with some satisfactory reply for your attempted "gotcthya, liar" response to my lived experience.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.wunderground.com/h... [wunderground.com]
seems to be about the best resource for max windspeeds each day. Sadly I can't download the historical time series.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the NOAA has an API to grab it.
It used to anyway, I pulled and graphed the data for a class project (I was using rain, but similar).
Re: (Score:1)
How many of these events does it take for the "there is no climate change" folks to realize, uh, weather trends that continue to change year over year for decades on end actually does sorta lead us to conclude that there is actually climate change?
They do not realize, for two reasons: they are to young.
They do not remember how the "weather" was 30+ years ago.
Secondly, frankly: they are to uneducated and modern media brain washed.
The winters when I was a child used to be good - snow, crispy cold - fresh air
Re: (Score:2)
How many of these events does it take for the "there is no climate change" folks to realize, uh, weather trends that continue to change year over year for decades on end actually does sorta lead us to conclude that there is actually climate change? They do not realize, for two reasons: they are to young. They do not remember how the "weather" was 30+ years ago.
Secondly, frankly: they are to uneducated and modern media brain washed.
The winters when I was a child used to be good - snow, crispy cold - fresh air ... now it is a nightmare.
It rains ... the sky is grey ... no sun ... everything is wet and moisture and damp ... it simply is super annoying, especially if you have wind. The rain flies from one side into your body, the umbrella is useless. Everyone is sick. You get home and are wet from hair to toes.
For a real winter ... For snow, you only need good boots. A nice jacket, a scarf, a hat and if you like: sunglasses. Or a hoody and a jacket on top ...
So we have no winters anymore. 90% of the insects that would have died in winter survive. And we have the next spring full with Mosquitos and what ever. The forest eaten by pine bugs - or what ever. No snow melting, not enough water in spring or summer ...
And the summers so hot, people can not sleep. Or depending on region, people actually die. Three or four droughts in a row. Forrest fires. And so on. Houses that never needed air con, now need air con.
Farmers used to harvest grain in July. Now they harvest in May! Sounds like win, or not? Sure, 5 years ago you just planted lettuce, and harvest that two times, or 5 times till September. Win/Win! But now we had 4 years draught, right? Or is it 5 years? So you plant some shit, so the wind does not blow away the air ... or you keep the remains of the cut grain on the field till October ...
See it from the bright side. Instead of ice skating on the frozen lakes and old river arms, we can sit there now with an RC boat or fly some drones. However I think somehow drones in sunlight at -10C on a snow land scape are more fun than a drone or a boat at +3C in fog and rain and mud under a grey sky.
It's been years since we've had an all winter snowpack. Used to be that would start around October and not clear up until late March or even April. Now it's just brief snows, followed by mud, yet still somehow we're not getting enough moisture to come out of the drought.
Re: (Score:1)
You have to have the snow in the higher areas.
So it slowly melts from March to May/June and supplies water to the groundwater and rivers.
And on the big mountains the smelting continuous till September until it gets cold again.
Germany gets "enough" water. But at the wrong time. Mud ... exactly. Mud instead of snow. Unfortunately it is to cold for half naked lady mud wrestling ...
So What? (Score:4, Insightful)
These reports are all pretty pointless. We know global warming is happening and the consequences are catastrophic. The question is what are we doing about it.
The answer is research for clickbait to feed the narrative about the disastrous consequences. There is already too much emissions in the atmosphere. We have spent the last ten or twenty years talking about the problem while putting increasingly more emissions into the atmosphere each year. We need to reduce the emissions in the atmosphere and progress is considered slowing the rate at which we annually increase the amount of new emissions.
In short, we aren't going to do anything other than talk about the problem and create intellectually interesting solutions that don't even begin to address the problem. A candle started the house on fire, so we are talking about buying a candle snuffer.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as money is involved, there will be debate until the last two humans are drowning on what to do about this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And outright denial.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, November 5, 2024 came up with a fix...
Since January 20, 2025, I have seen nothing but breakage. What fix are you expecting?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Full ecological collapse of entire breadbasket regions would be different. Entire populations of farmers losing their livelihoods.
Super-hurricanes that wreck entire cities. A slightly-bigger hurricane that causes 10s of billions of damage won’t cut it. That’s just slightly-worse weather. They’ll just blame Biden.
Heat waves that last long enough to soften the high
Re: (Score:2)
> The question is what are we doing about it.
Actually, the question is:
"When will crops fail?" That's the point when it's over.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell that is pure fantasy. We lack the capacity to replace all our current energy sources with emission free sources. Meanwhile the demand for energy continues to increase.
. The planet is already on fire and we continue to add fuel to the fire at an increasing rate. While discussing plans for stopping some time in the distant future.
Re: (Score:2)
Without some kind of time frame on that your statement lacks meaning. Are you claiming that even with one thousand years of developing technology we'd still lack the capacity to replace fossil fuels with emission free sources?
Yes, because we don't have a thousand years. So lets set the time frame as the foreseeable future.
One reason for optimism is that we are seeing people all over the world lose their fear of nuclear fission, or at least get desperate enough for low cost energy that they are willing to give nuclear power another try.
To replace all the current fossil fuel with nuclear power would require producing nuclear plants at about 100 times the current rate for the next 70 years assuming they never stopped running and the demand for energy didn't increase. Frankly the promotion of nuclear power as a magic bullet is one of the reasons for my pessimism. Bill Gates can continue to fly around the world in his private jet promoting a mag
Republicans Have Climate Delusions (Score:1)
Look at the photomap of Silicon Valley. It's gray from roads and buildings: https://maps.app.goo.gl/qFctJs... [app.goo.gl]
James Burke's 'After the Warming' came out in 1989 (Score:2)
and I watched it with great interest and an open mind, being a huge fan of James Burke. (See his "Connections" series to understand why.) Global warming was not talked about anywhere in the mainstream outside of scientists. The hand-wringing of the day concerned saving the rain forests from the evil Burger King that was chopping down rain forests in Costa Rica in order to create grazing lands for cattle. I made investments in 1993 that aligned with the Kyoto Accord, feeling that surely that the Clinton-Gore
Unprecedented? (Score:3, Insightful)
They keep using that word, I don't think it means what they think it means.
Just remember records only go back about 150 years. The Earth is 4 billion years old.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure we don't give a crap what the climate was like before multicellular life existed. We probably care far more for what the climate has been since humanity developed the language with which to describe the climate, and the instruments and knowledge to measure it's properties.
If anyone can prove that there was global warming on the scale we see today before humans developed language, and certainly before humans burned fossil fuels in significant quantities, then that places doubt on humans being able to avoid catastrophic global warming by changing where we get our energy. If we see global warming no matter what we do then it is a matter of working to adapt to the changes than trying to push back the rising tide by standing on the beach.
And since those landmark moments in history, this hasn't been happening. But keep your head in the sand, I'm sure that's going to work out really well.
Keep your head in the sand on how scienti
Re: (Score:1)
Artificial crisis (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain why California emptied out all water reservoirs and destroyed multiple dams before the fires?
To protect the delta smelt.
Why did they make it impossible for fire insurance to operate in the the state?
Misplaced priorities.
Why is there a recorded footage of drone setting things on fire?
Because they put cameras everywhere they can.
An illegal carrying a torch was caught by locals to be later released by police.
I'll have to think on that one.
Why there is three DEI gender-fluid persons in charge of the California fire department?
Because there is a culture war on White Christian heterosexual men, the very people they rely upon to do the dirty work that they refuse to do. The people making these DEI hiring decisions hate themselves, hate their own culture, and generally just hate. They are driven by hate to a point they have become effectively suicidal. While they won't eat lead they will have themselves rend
Yay for complex systems! (Score:3)
No matter how hard the evidence sways in any direction, neither side ever has to admit they're wrong. There is always a little uncertainty to hide in.
It's the epistemological god of the gaps. And it's dangerous.
The problem arises when it is used to justify doing nothing, or continuing to do things that are detrimental on the basis that certainty has not been achieved. And since it can never be achieved, deniers can ride that right into the scorched earth.
One side risks some unnecessary discomfort incurred if they're wrong. The other side risks everything. These risks are not equivalent.
Re: (Score:1)
There's so much you can hide by avoiding context.
151 "unprecedented" things happen in 2024.
How many years have they made this count? Is there a clear standard for "unprecedented"? Is there a trend in this data artifact? How is it affected by historical changes in monitoring resolution?
If either side wants to play the science game, you need to start, ahead of time, with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
1) what observations will prove you wrong;
2) what's the logical argument that
Re: (Score:2)
Look at you demonstrating my premise. Thank you for playing.
Just FYI (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Certainly no tree ring or ice core has a calibrated accuracy of tenths or hundredths of a degree.
Haven't you seen how straight a hockey stick is? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
If measurement inaccuracies occur randomly, you can still generate highly accurate results of aggregate parameters in a system, such as averages. What you need is lots of data. Generally, the error in such a derived value is S / sqrt(N) where S is the error in the individual measurements, and N is the number of measurements. So, the more data you have, the lower the standard error of the derived quantity. That is how climate scientists can speak meaningfully about parameters in fractions of a degree.
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone that tells you that they know the temperature anywhere to one tenth of a degree is lying to you. Let alone what the temperature in some place 150 years ago was to a tenth of a degree.
Think about how many samples you would need to have in order to even state what the temperature of any given -room- is to a tenth of a degree.
Re:More misleading politics from The Guardian (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone that tells you that they know the temperature anywhere to one tenth of a degree is lying to you. Let alone what the temperature in some place 150 years ago was to a tenth of a degree.
Well then, it's a good thing that climate scientists claim nothing of the kind. It's possible to calculate a very accurate average rate of increase of temperature over a long period with many inaccurate measurements. If you don't understand how that's possible, then you don't understand statistical analysis.
Think about how many samples you would need to have in order to even state what the temperature of any given -room- is to a tenth of a degree.
Again, you misunderstand what it is that's being calculated to a fraction of a degree. You're committing a similar kind of error that some people do when they confuse climate and weather.
But you can in fact measure the temperature at a given location in a room with such accuracy. As for the temperature of the room itself, it's likely to be close to the temperature in any one location if the ambient circulation is efficient. But it can vary by location in the room, due to heaters, air conditioners, heating/cooling from windows, or differential layering due to hot air rising. So, you might want to express the room temperature as some kind of average over all of these locations. There is an actual average temperature in that room that you could determine to a fraction of a degree given enough measurements, even though the measurements themselves might vary by a couple of degrees all over the room.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible to calculate a very accurate average rate of increase of temperature over a long period with many inaccurate measurements.
Sorry, I should have said less accurate measurements, not inaccurate ones. But my point stands otherwise.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, you are mistaken. You can not take numerous measurements that are +- 2 degrees and average them to come up with a result that is more accurate than the original error.
If I want to determine the temperature of a room to one tenth of a degree, then I have to take measurements that are more accurate than a tenth of a degree. I also have to take them close enough together that the change is less than a tenth of a degree. You can't take the temperature ate the floor (cooler air) and get 20 degrees C
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you are mistaken. You can not take numerous measurements that are +- 2 degrees and average them to come up with a result that is more accurate than the original error.
Once again, you have demonstrated that you do not understand statistical analysis. An average of a set of measurements can be, and usually is, more accurate than the individual measurements that make up the calculation of the average. This is fine, because it's an average, not an individual measurement.
To put it another way: if you made your measurements all over again and calculated a new average, you would expect the new result to be close to the old average, in fact within the smaller average error I men
Re: (Score:1)
I love the personal attacks.
In any event, making repeated measurements with +- 5% accuracy can only result in a measurement with +- 5% accuracy.
And no, this is the Nyquist sampling rate. If you have a given temperature range, and you want to know the average to a tenth of a degree, then your measurement instrument has to be more accurate than a tenth of a degree, and your sample rate has to be high enough that the temperature does not change by more than one half of the tenth of a degree.
I learned about si
Re: (Score:2)
My response was not an attack, nor was it personal. You're just wrong. Someone has to say so.
Since you brought up education, I will share I have a PhD in physics, with decades of experience in mathematics, statistics, and data analysis.
Please reflect on this exchange and learn something about the difference between errors in individual measurements, and errors in the calculation of a population average.
Re: (Score:1)
I have several engineering degrees and have retired after a 35 year career.
If you take 100 readings with a device that has a +- 5 percent accuracy and average them together, you get an average value that has a +- 5 percent accuracy. Easy as that. Repeatedly reading the same value as fast as you can, and then averaging the values together, does not produce a more accurate value.
What you are talking about is akin to an error rate. If you test 6 percent of light bulbs coming off of an assembly line, then yo
Re: (Score:2)
I also used a slide-rule in high school. Sounds like we're cohorts.
You're right that you can't do better than an instrument's measurement accuracy for an individual amount. For example, you can't measure a distance to micrometer-accuracy using a desktop ruler just by measuring the distance a million times.
I think I'm guilty of confusing the instrument's accuracy with the accuracy of the measurement of a mean as a function of the population's variance. For that I apologize.
Nevertheless I maintain that you ca
Re: (Score:1)
Spoken like a true deiner of Science
and before that it's several centuries of amateur observations in cities and on ships at sea with instruments lacking common calibration.
If you do not know how to calibrate a thermometer to a common standard, then you do not qualify for any discussion. If you never learned in school, then you could at least look it up.
Loook litttle oneee!!! They even have pictures that show how it is done!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikip [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Huh? (Score:1)
Is somebody denying the existence of a climate in 2025?
An actual intelligent discussion involves the exchange of ideas, which some of you guys seem unable to do. Jingoism and sloganeering teamed-up with name calling is no substitute for intelligent dialog.
Let me give you a start:
Please explain how it is rational to discuss "climate change" in tenths of degrees or hundredths of degrees when most of the methods used to measure temperatures on Earth before a century ago were in whole degrees, and most of THOSE