AGW and data measurement (global warming, dollar, compared, state)

[hawkeye2009]

It occurred to me after chatting with some of our AGW propnants that most had no idea how the temperatures were "measured" in the historic past compared to measurements made today. I had assumed that everyone knew what was used, but was shocked that few knew. I guess that is why there are so many AGW enthusiasts.


Well..................... mercury thermometers were not invented until the early 1700s and were not widely in use at all points around the world until earlier in the 20th century. Even temperature measurements made in different parts of the world were not routinely calibrated in a standardized fashion, leading to regional errors beyond those of measurement at different times of day, and not correcting for atmospheric pressure changes and other factors that can change temperature measurements.


The interesting (gee............. I thought these AGW folks actually knew this, but I gave them too much credit) thing is that Vikings, Romans. and Babylonians were not hanging around with yet to be discovered mercury thermometers measuring temperatures for later 21st century use.


No- temps are inferred via "proxy" measurements. These proxy measurements are estimates of temperature via pollen counts, rings of trees, coral reef changes, ect........ These measurements are crude estimates of temperature that have wide ranges of variations and are influenced by seasonal rains, availability of nutrients in the ground, wind dispersion patterns, and volcanic activity. All told, the proxy measurements result in more of a "scattergram" of data. When compiling these data points with wide ranges of reported measurement for presumably the same time period, an "averaging" occurs to arrive at a single temperature measurement without regard to the standard deviation and wide range of initial data collection points. Thus, the wide variability, and thus statistical significance of that measurement accuracy, is vastly overstated. The "averaging" is done over may proxy measurements in hopes of arriving at a better "true" number, however the scatter of raw data cannot be ignored, such that the actual "recorded" number can be easily 1-2 degrees centigrade off from the actual temperature. This is a HUGE difference in the world of historic temp measurement, such that these purported increases turn into no change at all.


Why is this important? Because the massive "increases in temperature" that have been described by the AGW crowd becomes zero when considering the actual standard deviation of data collected in the past. These "error bars" or ranges of actual data points are excluded in such graphs, such that what has appeared to be an increase in modern temps (measured by thermometers compared to inferred, proxy data of the past) is not significant at all.


Garbage in = Garbage out

[T-310]

You have committed heresy and are banished to future ocean front property in Arizona.

[Eumaois]

For those that dont' know, "anthropogenic global warming".

[Elliott_CA]

The fact that climate change deniers post their musings in Politics forums instead of publishing them in reputable scientific journals tells me all I need to know.

[Endoplasmic]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

The fact that climate change deniers post their musings in Politics forums instead of publishing them in reputable scientific journals tells me all I need to know.

Yep. They are good at copy and paste, but, I doubt any of them would know a reputable source if it jumped up and bit them in the ass.

[MacInTx]

Originally Posted by Endoplasmic

Yep. They are good at copy and paste, but, I doubt any of them would know a reputable source if it jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

The fact that climate change deniers post their musings in Politics forums instead of publishing them in reputable scientific journals tells me all I need to know.

Here we go again...insults of intelligence when counterarguments fail.

[Colorado Rambler]

You have already made it abundantly clear that you consider climatology to be a "fraudulent" science. Is there ANY scientific discipline that you consider valid? Geology? Chemistry? Physics?

What about data published by the Goddard Space Flight Center - Sciences and Exploration Directorate
Earth Sciences Division? Is their data fraudulent?

And what about data derived from ice cores where scientists analyse the content of the air bubbles, and determine not only the proportion of different gases but also the proportion of specific isotopes of those gases over periods of thousands and hundreds of thousands of year? Is that data fraudulent?

Do you have any reply other than "Do you deny that CO2 is one of the building blocks of life?" or "Do you deny that the carbon in your body comes from CO2?" Usually you write these replies in all caps and repeat them 5 or 6 times in a single post.

You want to bully people to come around to your decidedly unscientific system of belief by means of name calling and ad hominem attacks. God forbid that you use accepted science in any of your replies. If it suited your purposes, you'd probably even call the laws of thermodynamics "satanic."

I have better things to do with my time. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go watch paint dry. I suggest that you go scream at that poor little LPN who shudders every time she has the misfortune to encounter you.

[Eli34]

Hey, I'll be taking deniers seriously when they start producing their own peer-reviewed research to back up their arguments.

[Icy Tea]

I still want to be able to buy ocean front property in Florida for 5 cents on the dollar. If the sea levels are actually rising, that's more than a fair price. But only progressives would have to sell at that price, anybody else would know better.

[TwoByFour]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

Garbage in = Garbage out

Please cite the faulty papers. Original works, not excerpts. And please cite the peer-reviewed publications which prove the original works were wrong.