Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, see, we're on the same page. But see what they did, though?
The topic was: IPCC "howling" about this being the hottest year since 1880 -- so, humpf, "how did THEY know what the global temperatures were in 1880, snort, hmm?"
Then, you and I (and some others) did about 5 minutes of research to verify our facts and identify that in 1880, the technology existed in measurements and global climate data correlation and was, with some margin of error, accurate.
Now, they're on to debating tree rings.
Point still stands, though: yes, they could measure with some degree of accuracy what the global average temperatures were in 1880, based on possession of the right instruments AND, most importantly, an intercontinental telegraph cable system and communicationsmeans to correlate those findings in a timely manner.
In 1880, which is relevant to the original poster's question and attempt at making a point.
The accuracy really didn't improve until about 30 years ago when we started using satellite imagery as well as land based. Most of the denier trolls are in the same camp as the birthers. Truth isn't a concept they understand. All they do is spout RW talking points from Rush. They are the sheeple of the country.
Even so, there is a margin of error in the measurement....does any one know what it is?
Does anyone know what it is for the more contemporary measurements?
Does anyone know how these margins of errors (from one technology of measurement to another) combine together in the climatic models that are used to "predict" global warming?
Does anyone know whether the climatic models include all the important stuff:
Temperatures
Wind
Clouds
Sun Cycles
Moon Cycles
The Earth's Wobble
Variances (if any) in the path the Earth takes around the Sun
We need to know this stuff if we are going to trust the statements from any scientist. Remember: cooking the books works for science just as much as it does for bankers.
Yeah we know all that. The fact that you don't indicates you're unqualified to discuss the issue. Time for some homework, Sparky.
And here in lies the problem. Modern scientists took the raw data, normalized it (adjusted readings to account for location, methods, etc.) and then produced the data relied upon today. The problem is all this data has been destroyed. People have tried for years through the FOIA to get the raw data and were stonewalled until it was recently admitted it was destroyed.
"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation."
All raw data everywhere are adjusted before used. Individual station have know biases that are adjusted. Instruments fail and produce erroneous reading. Temperature instruments in urban areas are adjusted for the heat island effect.
You have no understanding of analysis what so ever. The quality of the data are unimpeached. The maturity of the email writers is certainly questionable,
Yeah its unimpeached because it was destroyed! Convenient isn't it!
And here in lies the problem. Modern scientists took the raw data, normalized it (adjusted readings to account for location, methods, etc.) and then produced the data relied upon today. The problem is all this data has been destroyed. People have tried for years through the FOIA to get the raw data and were stonewalled until it was recently admitted it was destroyed.
None of the raw data have been destroyed. The scientists who worked on the data sets that CRU maintains collected that raw data from measurement sites such as NOAA in the US. All those site still have all that raw data. Anyone who wants to replicate the work of Mann, et al can gather the data just as Mann did.
None of the raw data have been destroyed. The scientists who worked on the data sets that CRU maintains collected that raw data from measurement sites such as NOAA in the US. All those site still have all that raw data. Anyone who wants to replicate the work of Mann, et al can gather the data just as Mann did.
They will find that the answer doesn't change.
Read the link, the data has been destroyed. By the way this is an extension of climate gate. Difficult questions will not be asked! This is alarming, people of good faith on either side of this issue should be deeply disturbed by this.
Read the link, the data has been destroyed. By the way this is an extension of climate gate. Difficult questions will not be asked! This is alarming, people of good faith on either side of this issue should be deeply disturbed by this.
This is a major problem. We can't validate their data. We can't replicate it. We can't even check their arithmetic going back to the original data. Moreover, they refuse to publish the margin of error of their measurements, and they refuse to discuss the margin of error of their projections.
If this were a study to get a new drug approved by the FDA, the study would be thrown out due to a lack of real data, real analysis, and the inability to do independent verification and validation. Yet, some people take this data as enough to launch major, world wide governmental policy changes that will affect the living standards of everyone on the planet.
This is just plain stupid.
(and rlchurch is still being ignored.)
This is a major problem. We can't validate their data. We can't replicate it. We can't even check their arithmetic going back to the original data. Moreover, they refuse to publish the margin of error of their measurements, and they refuse to discuss the margin of error of their projections.
If this were a study to get a new drug approved by the FDA, the study would be thrown out due to a lack of real data, real analysis, and the inability to do independent verification and validation. Yet, some people take this data as enough to launch major, world wide governmental policy changes that will affect the living standards of everyone on the planet.
This is just plain stupid.
(and rlchurch is still being ignored.)
Check out the link if you want to get really angry.
Read the link, the data has been destroyed. By the way this is an extension of climate gate. Difficult questions will not be asked! This is alarming, people of good faith on either side of this issue should be deeply disturbed by this.
If you were less of a sheeple and could think for yourself, you'd quickly find out that the raw data used by CRU and then discarded came for many other sources. They still have all the original raw data. Now I understand for a ditto head that screws up your moment of outrage, but such is life.
Check out the link if you want to get really angry.
It is sooooo disappointing.
The only possible reason for this non-sense, that I can personally think of, is that either 1) "they" are trying to make a market for new and unneeded products, or 2) "they" want to increase our taxes or other tributes to be paid to "them."
Sorry, I know that's not very intellectual, but its the best I have right now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
