How Deniers View Global Warming

By Dana Nuccitelli

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWdJuNYLTLs
One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate deniers is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal. 

 This video shows how the same temperature data (green) that is used to determine the long-term global surface air warming trend of 0.18 °C per decade (red) can be used inappropriately to "cherrypick" short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are carefully chosen and the trend is dominated by short-term noise in the data (blue steps).  

Isn't it strange how seven periods of cooling can add up to a clear warming trend over the last 4 decades? 

Several factors can have a large impact on short-term temperatures, such as oceanic cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the 11-year solar cycle. These short-term cycles don't have long-term effects on the Earth's temperature, unlike the continuing upward trend caused by global warming from human greenhouse gas emissions. 

 The data (green) are NASA GISS monthly global surface temperature anomaly data from January 1970 through November 2016, with linear trends for the cherry picked time periods of Jan 1970–May 1977, May 1977–October 1979, October 1979–April 1988, April 1988–March 1997, March 1997–February 2002, February 2002–October 2009, and October 2009–April 2014 (blue), followed by the linear trend for the full time period (red).

Fever Detection Screening

And Follow Up

There are many recent news stories about “thermal scanners” being used to screen people at transit hubs, building entrances and other places where a person with an elevated temperature may be infected with the COVID-19 virus. It’s a straightforward idea that began during the SARS epidemic in the early 2000s and is well understood by many, but not all.

Seems to me it would be useful to summarize some of the factors used in selecting and using these devices for those who do not understand the important details. Also, I have listed some references below, not all free, but the Abstracts of most SPIE articles are free online.

Sales and marketing departments of the suppliers of these infrared temperature measuring devices may overlook, or not know the details themselves in their haste to make sales. So, be careful and thorough.

Some of the keys to making effective use of thermal infrared imaging systems are: 

• Insure that they are sufficiently sensitive and traceabley calibrated (making a measurement that is critical means the measuring devices must be calibrated and calibration without traceability is sub-standard, next to worthless, it provides the basis for measurement repeatability), 
• They are set up and aligned correctly (there are standards and reference examples available) and 
• The staff using them is well-trained in both the use of the camera and the software that performs the analysis. 

STANDARDS

IEC 80601-2-59:2017   “Medical electrical equipment - Part 2-59: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of screening thermographs for human febrile temperature screening”

https://www.astm.org/Standards/E1965.htm ,  “Standard Specification for Infrared Thermometers for Intermittent Determination of Patient Temperature” (Note that a thermal imager camera is basically an Infrared Thermometer “on steroids”, its technical name, if it claims to measure temperature, is a ‘2D Thermal Infrared Radiation Thermometer’).

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/general-hospital-devices-and-supplies/thermal-imaging-systems-infrared-thermographic-systems-thermal-imaging-cameras, “Thermal Imaging Systems” (Infrared Thermographic Systems / Thermal Imaging Cameras)

https://www.iso.org/contents/data/standard/06/93/69347.html , “Medical electrical equipment — Deployment, implementation and operational guidelines for identifying febrile humans using a screening thermograph. (ISO/TR 13154:2017)”.

and,

Ghassemi, P., et al. (2018). "Best practices for standardized performance testing of infrared thermographs intended for fever screening." PLoS ONE 13(9): e0203302

Screening in an efficient manner leads to then selecting those, hopefully few, who appear to have a fever and then to determine if they actually do. That means a second temperature measurement with either a contact or noncontact thermometer to measure more precisely.

Then those with true fevers can be further tested to determine their infection status; they might not have COVID-19, it could be another infection or they could have a higher than avarage, normal temperature.

I plan to follow this article with one on more accurate determination of a person’s temperature.

Some useful references:

“Enforcement Policy for Telethermographic Systems During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Public Health Emergency“, FDA’s Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration - APRIL 2020

The papers delivered in two sessions of ThermoSense XXVI (Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 5405, “Medical Thermometry for SARS Detection I” and Medical Thermometry for SARS Detection II”; Papers 5405-06, 5405-07, 5405-08, 5405-11, 5405-12, 5405-13, 5405-14)

“Human radiation thermometry and screening for elevated body temperature in humans” Author(s): G. Raymond Peacock

“New blackbody standard for the evaluation and calibration of tympanic ear thermometers at the NPL, United Kingdom” Author(s): Helen C. McEvoy; Robert Simpson; Graham Machin

“Noninvasive temporal artery thermometry: physics, physiology, and clinical accuracy” Author(s): Francesco Pompei; Marybeth Pompei

”Development and deployment of infrared fever screening systems “Author(s): Yang How Tan; Chee Wah Teo; Eric Ong; Lay Beng Tan; Ming Jern Soo

“Types of thermal imaging systems for mass fever screening and their evaluations”

Author(s): Li Wang; Sze Wey Chua; Victor Tan

”Infrared thermographic in identification of human elevated temperature with biostatistical and ROC analysis“ Author(s): Eddie Y. K. Ng; Gregory J. L. Kaw; Kelvin Ng

“Stop outbreak of SARS with infrared cameras “ Author(s): Yigang Michael Wu

G. Raymond Peacock "Temperature uncertainty of IR thermal imager calibration", Proc. SPIE 6205, Thermosense XXVIII, 620509 (18 April 2006); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.667848

”Comparison of 3 Infrared Thermal Detection Systems and Self-Report for Mass Fever Screening” Authors, An V. Nguyen, Nicole J. Cohen, Harvey Lipman,1 Clive M. Brown, Noelle-Angelique Molinari, William L. Jackson, Hannah Kirking, Paige Szymanowski, Todd W. Wilson, Bisan A. Salhi, Rebecca R. Roberts, David W. Stryker, and  Daniel B. Fishbein

EID Journal, Volume 16, Number 11—November 2010

How Accurate Are IR Thermometers?

When trying to measure fever temperatures

On the news we see lots of images of people pointing a compact Infrared (IR) Thermometer a person’s forehead to determine if they have a fever or not. In many cases if done as a really coarse screening tool, it’s probable adequate.

Well, the question naturally arises: How “Accurate*“ is the measurement?

Without knowing the specific IR Thermometer in use, it is possible to create a practical estimate based on both typical industry product specs and on the detailed research done by one of the leaders in the field of noncontact Infrared Temperature measurement of humans, the Exergen Corporation.

Why Exergen? It’s simple. 

They are one of the most technical and prolific developers of no-touch, IR Thermometers in the world, ones developed specifically for the measurement of human body temperature.

They call their devices “Temporal Artery Thermometers” because their extensive research has shown this to be an excellent and highly reproducible method of measurement.

“Clinical accuracy per ASTM E1112“ is +/- 0.1 Deg. C given for the Exergen Model TAT-5000 on the Exergen website.

Most IR Thermometers developed for general use, not specifically intended for measuring human body temperature, usually have a relatively wide measurement range, like 0 to 500 Deg. C. Typical calibration specification is +/- 1 Deg. C or 2% of reading, whichever is greater.

The best “Accuracy” one should expect in use at around 37 Deg. C is then +/- 1 Deg. C, but the errors in use at least double that. So one should not be surprised that both false positives and false negatives will likely occur at a specific measurement target temperature, like 37.5 Deg. C.

There is some useful information on the FDA website at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/general-hospital-devices-and-supplies/non-contact-infrared-thermometers.

Ear Thermometers were introduced more than 20 years ago and have a mixed response from their users. They need careful use and can produce false negatives for fever measurement if not done correctly.

The following webpage from the Mayo Clinic compares the several methods of body temperature: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/fever/in-depth/thermometers/art-20046737.

Below are links to some additional resources on human body temperature measurement.

E825-98(2016) Standard Specification for Phase Change-Type Disposable Fever Thermometer for Intermittent Determination of Human Temperature

E1061-01(2014) Standard Specification for Direct-Reading Liquid Crystal Forehead Thermometers

E1104-98(2016) Standard Specification for Clinical Thermometer Probe Covers and Sheaths

E1112-00(2018) Standard Specification for Electronic Thermometer for Intermittent Determination of Patient Temperature

E1299-96(2016) Standard Specification for Reusable Phase-Change-Type Fever Thermometer for Intermittent Determination of Human Temperature

E1965-98(2016) Standard Specification for Infrared Thermometers for Intermittent Determination of Patient Temperature

_______________________

* Accuracy is the misnomer that many instrument makers put in their literature but it is not a quantitative technical term recognized by those who study and understand measurement science (metrology). It is a qualitative term much like “beauty” and “colorful” are. People believe that it describes how well a measurement devices measures, yet, it does not. The more precise term, used by Metrologists is “Measurement Uncertainty“ and, when used to fully describe a measurement result quantitatively, it includes a Confidence Level and limits. See the page on this site for more details https://grpeacock.blogspot.com/p/uncertainty.html.

World Metrology Day

Measurements for global trade

World Metrology Day is an annual event during which more than 80 countries celebrate the impact of measurement on our daily lives. This date was chosen in recognition of the signing of the Metre Convention on 20 May 1875, the beginning of formal international collaboration in metrology.

Each year World Metrology Day is organised and celebrated jointly by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) and the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) with the participation of the national organisations responsible for metrology.

The international metrology community which works to ensure that accurate measurements can be made across the world endeavours to raise awareness each World Metrology Day through a poster campaign and web site.

Previous themes have included topics such as measurements for the global energy challenge, for safety, for innovation, and measurements in sport, the environment, medicine and trade.

May 20 is World Metrology Day, commemorating the anniversary of the signing of the Metre Convention in 1875. This treaty provides the basis for a worldwide coherent measurement system that underpins scientific discovery and innovation, industrial manufacturing and international trade, as well as the improvement of the quality of life and the protection of the global environment.

The theme for World Metrology Day 2020 is Measurements for global trade. This theme was chosen to create awareness of the important role measurement plays in facilitating fair global trade, ensuring products meet standards and regulations, and satisfying customer quality expectations. Across the world, national metrology institutes continually advance measurement science by developing and validating new measurement techniques at the necessary level of sophistication.

The national metrology institutes participate in measurement comparisons coordinated by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) to ensure the reliability of measurement results worldwide.

The International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) develops International Recommendations, which aim to align and harmonise requirements worldwide in many fields. The OIML also operates the OIML Certification System (OIML-CS) which facilitates international acceptance and global trade of regulated measuring instruments.

These international metrology systems provide the necessary assurance and confidence that measurements are accurate, providing a sound basis for global trade today and helping us to prepare for the challenges of tomorrow.

World Metrology Day recognises and celebrates the contribution of all the people that work in intergovernmental and national metrology organisations and institutes throughout the year.

More online at WorldMetrologyDay.org.

Credit: The 2020 poster above was designed by AFRIMETS (www.afrimets.org)

COVID Senior Deaths in US ~80% Of Total

COVID-19 Deaths Scary to This Senior

As a retiree, and a Senior, I am concerned that our leaders and media are either inept or deliberately trying to hide the true magnitude of the disaster that COVID-19 is taking on the Senior demographic. Here’s a few stats that I could find without too much digging, thanks to the links on the worldometers.info website.

From these data it is not a very far reach to conclude that Senior deaths make up about 80% or more of the total number of deaths reported to date. Am I wrong, or has this fact been subtlety hidden from the populous?

Both items are very scary, indeed! I suspect that most people including Seniors have a feeling that the number is about 50%, not the really dramatic and scary value of 80%! That’s more than 2/3rds of total deaths!!

Why, in heavens name, would State enumerators not analyze the data by age when there are analyses by all sorts of things like race, county and more? There is no uniformity to reporting and some states do a far more competent job than others.

Note please, that the percentages shown below are of the total number reported COVID-19 attributed deaths for each reporting unit. In some cases there was no breakout of deaths for people over 65 years age and, the number I used is half the reported number for between 60 and 69. That’s probably conservative since it is most likely that there are more deaths above 65 than below.

Percentage of  Deaths for Citizens 65 and Older Due to COVID-19 Infection By Sampled U.S.A. Areas:

New York: 74%

New Jersey: 80%

Connecticut: NR*

Massachusetts: 90%

Michigan: 88%

District of Columbia: 33% **

Louisiana: NR***
Pennsylvania: NR*

Rhode Island: 86%

Illinois: 68%

Maryland: 78%

Florida: 85%

Georgia: NR

Indiana: 83%

Average of reported and credible sample data: 81%
___________________

• *Not Reported
• ** Not Reported, not analyzed rest home data available, clearly under reported
• ***Not Reported, some rest home data mentioned, no other

____________________

What does this imply?

Seems to me there are several obvious things that these statistics strongly imply:

1. The “News” Media does not have a clue, they seem to focus on the obvious and do not go any further like asking some thoughtful questions of those in charge about the meaning of lop-sided demographics of deaths in terms of treatments options, options in opening the economy and development of plans to better protect the vulnerable to make opening easier and sooner.

2. From the onset of the crisis there have been generic warnings about those who are vulnerable, but little beyond, again, vague generalities of washing hands and avoiding contact, There has nothing promoted about efforts to seriously impress the gravity of the situation on Seniors over 65!

3. Despite massive government efforts to develop antivirals and vaccines, there has been no mention, at least I haven’t heard any, about efforts to improve the immune systems of the most vulnerable people in the country, the ones who make up more than 80% of deaths, thus far. Are there medicinals, vitamins or some new pharmaceutical approach that could help? (My personal observation is that there are hardly any Vitamin C tablets available at CVS, Costco or other stores and even very slow delivery from Amazon online. Some people obviously believe in Vitamin C! Thanks to Dr Linus Pauling, a double Nobel Prize awardee, I am a fan; his arguments in his book, “Vitamin C and The Common Cold”, were very convincing to me. )

4. Seems to me that Seniors including those on Medicare should be receiving more urgent warnings and support to keep away from outside contacts and made aware of how truly serious the hazard is to them.

PostNote:

In a corrected report, March 18th, on morbidity and mortality, the CDC actually reported that 80% of COVID-19 deaths were among the 65 and older age group, yet I never heard any report in the media about it and it is buried in Internet search results. See: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6912e2-H.pdf

Looks like the very high percentage of deaths from COVID-19 for those older than 65 holds true for Sweden, too.  According to the data online at https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/, as of May 20, the percentage is 91.7%.

In April, Metro news in the U.K. estimated that about 82.3% of COVID-19 deaths was among those over age 65. See https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/03/coronavirus-deaths-age-uk-12506448/.

COVID -19 Response Effectiveness

Which Prosperous Countries Did Best?

Current statical data provide insights into the COVID-19  effects on the world’s populous. They also provide some stellar views on the effectiveness of various countries’ preparedness and the effectiveness of their Public Health Systems.

Everyone has been aghast at the sudden illnesses and deaths in many European countries where deaths exceed 400 people per million (M) population according to the data updated daily on Worldometers.info as of 15 May 2020. How did a few creditable countries like S. Korea and only a very few others shut the door so effectively on COVID-19?

Why has the response in the U.S.A. been so poor when compared to a few other prosperous countries like S. Korea, Germany and Austria? See some selected measures displayed on the freely available tables of data for all countries on Worldometers.info and summarized below.

Whatever the reason, it is perhaps time for many countries to wake up to the real needs of science and the significance of priorities in Public Health. Certainly both S. Korea and Germany have governments that value their citizens lives and safety more highly than many others, including the U.S.A. Rhetoric and boisterous disclaimers pale when compared to the facts revealed in the data.

It should not take The Pandemic to deliver the message that our leaders are not very good at leading, but perhaps that will be the impetus for its leaders to do their jobs in the public interest...first.

Perhaps many on the US’s political left have some truly good ideas on Public Health.

Table 1, Selected data from Worldometers.info

Date: May 15, 2020. 

Country     Total Cases   Active Cases   Total Deaths   Deaths/ 1M pop.    Tests/ 1M pop.

U.S.A.          1,470,067       1,074,576             87,704             265                         32,599

S. Korea           11,018                  937                 937                 5                          14,937

Germany         175,223            15,737               7,951               95                          37,585

Austria               16,109              1,010                 628                70                          39,040

Israel                 16,589              3,736                  236                31                          56,258

Bright: Science vs. Muck

Facts vs. Blather

The stir that Dr. Rick Bright’s whistleblower complaint on cronyism and other swamp-like practices in HHS’s BARDA has produced a flurry of claims, counter-claims and “news” that seems to bury some of the key facts of the matter. It has already created wider and deeper amounts of muck that obscure the facts he claims due to the implications they raise about our country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

How can we know what’s actually true among the thickening mist of allegations and ad hominem obfuscations? How about starting at the very beginning? Dr. Bright reveals in his complaint that he is a very competent person and, at least, keeps a detailed daily diary.

Read the complaint itself to learn what Dr. Bright alleges; don’t expect any news media source to interpret it faithfully! It’s only a few dozen typed pages, free online and quite interesting.

Certainly, the political implications are embarrassing and hotly contested.

It would all amount to typical “swamp gas” except for the possible conclusion that the inept and/or illegal actions of Trump’s Administration at the start of, and during, the “COVID-19 Crisis” claimed by Dr. Bright may have significantly contributed to the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of our fellow citizens and the major economic distress to our people, country and our unprepared Federal & State Governments and Medical Systems.

Below is the link to the New York Times unvarnished copy of his complaint (there are many others). You may have to scroll down through some basic forms to find the details of his statement; it is entitled:

“ADDENDUM TO THE COMPLAINT OF PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICE AND OTHER PROHIBITED ACTIVITY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SUBMITTED BY DR. RICK BRIGHT“

Free Course to Train Coronavirus Contact Tracers

Six- hour online class

“Johns Hopkins University is hosting a free, publicly available course titled Understanding the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from Johns Hopkins University Experts. This course is set up as a series of short modules to explore the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Registration is not required.

“The modules build on each other. The course begins with a discussion of the virus that causes COVID-19 and works its way to the pandemic’s broader implications for society.

“This course features original content that was created after the imposition of social distancing measures.“

For details and to take the course, visit: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/covid-19-basics/understanding-covid-19

Spectral Emissivity on Fluke's Website

After the Fluke organization acquired Raytek, many of the original technical webpages were merged into the Fluke Process Instruments webpages.

The links we had on spectral emissivity values for  Raytek's webpages on my original website were changed.

However the data remains the same and still provides useful insights for users of Infrared Radiation Thermometers and Thermal Imaging Cameras.

Of course, the data clearly shows, as it always has, that "Emissivity" is not a simple topic and that, in fact there are some significant spectral variations in emissivity values according to the waveband sensitivity of the IR Thermometer being used and the type of material being measured. There are more, but those details are not detailed here.

Raytek's well-presented information on Spectral Emissivity, was one of the few instrument makers who did so. In fact, I believe they still are unique for their successor organization, Fluke Process Instruments.

Although they just call it plain "emissivity" they then present values for three or four different wavebands, according to the table viewed,

"A Rose by any other name...". There are two pages with disclaimers.

Here's the opening statements in each page and links to them.

"Emissivity - Non-Metals"

"Emissivity Values for Common Materials"

"Emissivity is the measure of an object's ability to emit infrared energy. Emitted energy indicates the temperature of the object. Emissivity can have a value from 0 (shiny mirror) to 1.0 (blackbody). Most organic, painted, or oxidized surfaces have emissivity values close to 0.95. The majority of our IR sensors have an adjustable emissivity feature to ensure accuracy when measuring other materials, such as shiny metals.

"Please note, these values are to be used as a guide only, as emissivity changes depending on the actual material surface and conditions."

Emissivity Table for Non-metals (Note: Shows typical values in four different wavebands)

"Emissivity Values for Metals

Same statement as for Non-Metals

  Emissivity Table for Metals (Note: Shows typical values in three different wavebands)