Somebody explain how global temps were measured in the 1880's (regular, biased)
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.
There are several real problems with temperature readings that make them almost useless.
First the Instrument data from the 1800s (as others point out) were done with “eyeball” readings on glass thermometers. While they were likely accurate, they were not read to tenth of a degree accuracy.
Second, as time progressed, it stands to reason that older thermometers became less accurate.
Third, as technology progressed, new advanced thermometers were used but did they synch with the older ones? Likely they did not.
Forth, in addition to time and technology, land use has drastically changed. Where an instrument location might once have been in an empty field, some building or road or sidewalk might have been build right next to it. Anyone who has ever stood next to a brick building after the sun goes down in the summer surely knows that the building will have an impact on the temperature.
Fifth, actual location for a particular measurement station might be moved. There are many hundreds of locations that have been moved due to land use changes. Anyone looking at a weather map can see that there will be fluctuations from one location to another. Moving a weather station just a few hundred feet can cause a drastic change in the recorded temperature for that location. (Is there more shade? Is the new location at the exact same level or is it in a depression or on a hill? Is the new location closer to some structure or does the wind move in the same way?) All of these variations will impact the measured reading even if the exact same thermometer is used.
Sixth, in the last 30 years, the total number of measurement locations has drastically fallen. In the USA it is well documented that all of the rural locations have been closed and only those in urban areas remain.
In addition to the issues with the instrument record, there is a divergence problem between the instrument record and satellite data. NOAA’s recent report that 2009 has been quite warm is based on instrument data alone. NOAA did not use the satellite data because it showed a much cooler trend in 2009.
As to ocean temperature data, again there are divergence problems. In 2003 the ARGO system became operational and has shown a slight cooling of the oceans since then. However, NOAA is using an older system (and avoiding satellite data again) to come up with a warming trend in 2009.
It takes a lot of work to get warming but these guys are giving it the old college try that is for sure!
Can anyone know how accurate the indirect measurements from pollen, etc are? I know we can follow trends like where the glaciers retreated to at a certain time period, but can we look accurately at such precise measurements as temperature from indirect measurements?
I just find it interesting all of the arguing over the temperature readings within the past 100 years, which really amounts to such a small sample considering the history of this planet that it could be meaningless.
Science uses the facts and numbers that have. So based on that they can use the data they want to use and possiblity ignore and or say over last 100 years which is why they dont say over the last 100,000 years.
So to answer your question and considering the current new data they have choosen to silence willing to show new trends of cooling.
Being that I'm sure this thread as started to show the possible computer generated and highly accurate current temp gathering Im sure the 1880 and technology has advanced enough to show and explore the weather much more in detail of which we didnt have in the 1880's. Of course like with any new technology and expanding knowledge brings science closer to insanity.
There are several real problems with temperature readings that make them almost useless.
First the Instrument data from the 1800s (as others point out) were done with “eyeball†readings on glass thermometers. While they were likely accurate, they were not read to tenth of a degree accuracy.
Second, as time progressed, it stands to reason that older thermometers became less accurate.
Third, as technology progressed, new advanced thermometers were used but did they synch with the older ones? Likely they did not.
Forth, in addition to time and technology, land use has drastically changed. Where an instrument location might once have been in an empty field, some building or road or sidewalk might have been build right next to it. Anyone who has ever stood next to a brick building after the sun goes down in the summer surely knows that the building will have an impact on the temperature.
Fifth, actual location for a particular measurement station might be moved. There are many hundreds of locations that have been moved due to land use changes. Anyone looking at a weather map can see that there will be fluctuations from one location to another. Moving a weather station just a few hundred feet can cause a drastic change in the recorded temperature for that location. (Is there more shade? Is the new location at the exact same level or is it in a depression or on a hill? Is the new location closer to some structure or does the wind move in the same way?) All of these variations will impact the measured reading even if the exact same thermometer is used.
Sixth, in the last 30 years, the total number of measurement locations has drastically fallen. In the USA it is well documented that all of the rural locations have been closed and only those in urban areas remain.
In addition to the issues with the instrument record, there is a divergence problem between the instrument record and satellite data. NOAA’s recent report that 2009 has been quite warm is based on instrument data alone. NOAA did not use the satellite data because it showed a much cooler trend in 2009.
As to ocean temperature data, again there are divergence problems. In 2003 the ARGO system became operational and has shown a slight cooling of the oceans since then. However, NOAA is using an older system (and avoiding satellite data again) to come up with a warming trend in 2009.
It takes a lot of work to get warming but these guys are giving it the old college try that is for sure!
All wrong. The mercury in glass thermometer was invented in 1714. It can be calibrated with a bucket of ice water and a pot of boiling water. You can read one easily to 1/10 of a degree. Overlapping reading in time and space allow adjustment of heat island effects and pooling data from broad geographic regions compensates for local variations. NOAA does use satellite data for measurements. You appear not to realize that NOAA measures surface and atmospheric temperatures. Scientists are using surface temperatures because that's where we live.
Right! Briffa reviews Mann, Mann reviews Jones, Jones reviews Briffa... repeat...
dont you love the review process?
No papers have been withdrawn for data quality reasons.
The NSF corroborated Mann, et al. original work, which has been refined and extended by many others at this point. You got a handful of snarky emails, but no data problems.
All wrong. The mercury in glass thermometer was invented in 1714. It can be calibrated with a bucket of ice water and a pot of boiling water. You can read one easily to 1/10 of a degree. Overlapping reading in time and space allow adjustment of heat island effects and pooling data from broad geographic regions compensates for local variations. NOAA does use satellite data for measurements. You appear not to realize that NOAA measures surface and atmospheric temperatures. Scientists are using surface temperatures because that's where we live.
hee hee... yes they use them but not in all their reporting....
It seems to depend on what the measurements are saying...
None of what I said was wrong. They are all points of failure. Not that they are each a point of failure every time, but they are points that can and have been proven to have failed.
No papers have been withdrawn for data quality reasons.
The NSF corroborated Mann, et al. original work, which has been refined and extended by many others at this point. You got a handful of snarky emails, but no data problems.
yamal?
and the data in the leak (I believe) shows some Mann inversion... LOL!
Snarky aint the problem my friend.
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.
