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.
What is relevant is that they cherry-pick their dates, and with good reason.
The will never show you the temperature range for the entire 400,000 year period, due to the fact that the last 8 Inter-Glacial Periods were all warmer than present.
In fact, the average temperature for the last Inter-Glacial Period was 10°F warmer than right now.
Factually....
Mircea
I was just giving a sampling of my hundreds of unanswered questions about the sloppiness of the experimental method in climate science in general, given how much of it depends on extrapolation of wildly inaccurate measurements and historical record. The first claim made is always "unprecedented" and nobody can seem to answer the margin of error question where extrapolating (introduces level of error) from historical records (exponential magnifying existing error) that are incomplete and inaccurate (further exponentiation).
Even the measurement of the global mean temperature in 2014 is sloppy if reducing external influences that skew your data is a goal. A more accurate global mean temperature data collection system would employ thousands of the exact same measuring device, all calibrated and verified by two independent and separate entities, and the collection would be 5 minute intervals across all points across at least a 20-30 year cycle.
But no, we drop a few hundred thermometers in carefully chosen locations to get them just near enough to heat blooms and other locally temperature sensitive locations to get a set of data that more easily fits a preconceived theory, or your already mentioned confirmation bias fallacy with a little begging of the question thrown in.
So much sloppy in the entire thing it defies comprehension how it is taken any more seriously than astrology.
Pretty graphs. I have a question. If CO2 causes the global temperature to rise, and your own graphs show a continued exponential increase in CO2 over the past 17 years, why hasn't the earth warmed in relative proportion to the CO2 increase. I mean, if man-made "green house gasses" really do directly cause an increase in the earth's temperature, then we should always see a proportional increase. So what happened? And don't say the ocean ate the hot air...
I was just giving a sampling of my hundreds of unanswered questions about the sloppiness of the experimental method in climate science in general, given how much of it depends on extrapolation of wildly inaccurate measurements and historical record. The first claim made is always "unprecedented" and nobody can seem to answer the margin of error question where extrapolating (introduces level of error) from historical records (exponential magnifying existing error) that are incomplete and inaccurate (further exponentiation).
Even the measurement of the global mean temperature in 2014 is sloppy if reducing external influences that skew your data is a goal. A more accurate global mean temperature data collection system would employ thousands of the exact same measuring device, all calibrated and verified by two independent and separate entities, and the collection would be 5 minute intervals across all points across at least a 20-30 year cycle.
But no, we drop a few hundred thermometers in carefully chosen locations to get them just near enough to heat blooms and other locally temperature sensitive locations to get a set of data that more easily fits a preconceived theory, or your already mentioned confirmation bias fallacy with a little begging of the question thrown in.
So much sloppy in the entire thing it defies comprehension how it is taken any more seriously than astrology.
It's like taking an eight of a second video shot of a soccer game and then predicting the winner.
Of course, but they will never be the same as they were millions of years ago when the planet was still undergoing growing pains, and volcanic eruptions were common.
You do realize that conditions on earth were much different in the distant past, don't you? Science does not ignore past climate forcings or conditions.
The dinosaurs used to fart more greenhouse gasses than we produce.
I love it when graphs show data that could not be measured. The equipment was not invented to test the data, nor was there ever a reason to do the testing.
Explain the drought and dust bowl of the 1950s and 1880's, once people made it past the Mississippi river, to see it and document it.
What has been documented is that our cold/hot, rainy dry cycles every 50-60.
Global warming made the ice age go away. Explain that!
The first graph shows temperatures and CO2 levels from 1880 to 2010.
In 1880 we had accurate thermometers. And scientists used "ice" core samples to get the CO2 levels from 1880.
The second graph shows the suns energy output from 1975 to 2005.
"The first satellites designed to observe the Sun were NASA's Pioneers 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, which were launched between 1959 and 1968." (But I would assume people were measuring the suns output on Earth LONG before 1959.)
Maybe in 100 more years of study, scientists will better understand the relationship of the Earth and the Sun and the many different forms of energy the Sun puts out and how it affects the core of the Earth, the true source of our temps.
Nobody was accurately taking temperature measurements in the late 19th early 20th century either. To say it was an average of 57 could be 56-57-58 or even 59. It matters where the temperatures are being taken from also.
Nobody has an actual idea what the exact average temperature was in Russia, China, Africa, Australia etc etc etc to this degree.
In 1612, the Italian inventor Santorio Santorio made the first thermometer (but it was not very accurate.)
"What can be considered the first modern thermometer, the mercury thermometer with a standardized scale, was invented by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit in 1714."
But it appears today's scientists don't "fully" trust thermometer readings until 1880.
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.
