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.
The issue isn't the accuracy of instruments, but the systematic collection of data from enough point to allow global imputations to be made. That point is usually taken as about 1880. Prior to 1880 we rely most heavily on proxy readings -- tree rings, Ice cores and qualitative records.
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.
Someone else answered regarding the accuracy of thermometers dating back to the 18th century, but, the original poster asked about 1880, not prior to 1850.
Even so, 1837 was really when the telegraph enabled the global communicatons possible to relay this info.
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.
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.
Selective choicing of variables to those that best support your hypothesis-objective seems to be the order of the day, and to be what I call political science.
Or how they are even accurate now. Satellites have been used the last thirty or so years I believe but what did they do before?? Did Wild Bill Hickock or Jesse James run around recording temps? Who did it in the Antarctic? How do they measure sea temps? Those ocean bouis? (spelling??) What if a whale pisses next to one wont that make the measurement higher? IPCC is howling about how this year was one of the hottest since 1880 or whatever but how the friggen hell do they even know.
Are you so upset because they didn't bother to ask you?
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.
I think you'd better alert the scientific establishment. I'll bet dollars to donuts those dummies never thought about any of that stuff.
I think you'd better alert the scientific establishment. I'll bet dollars to donuts those dummies never thought about any of that stuff.
I know for a fact that there are issues in those variables. I have lunch sometimes with the meterologists (PhD researchers) at school. One day they were remarking that they don't have models for how clouds affect the climate in the long term. They simply don't have the data, nor the measurement methods to develop decent models. They went on to say, that according to recent astronomers, the Earth's path around the Sun varies from time-to-time as well. Not only do the climate models NOT include that information, their is very little attempt on the part of the reseachers to get it included. Its not that they don't think it is important, it is just that the clouds are a bigger problem and deserve more of their attention right now.
By the way, the school I am talking about is one of the University of Clalifornia campuses.
I know for a fact that there are issues in those variables. I have lunch sometimes with the meterologists (PhD researchers) at school. One day they were remarking that they don't have models for how clouds affect the climate in the long term. They simply don't have the data, nor the measurement methods to develop decent models. They went on to say, that according to recent astronomers, the Earth's path around the Sun varies from time-to-time as well. Not only do the climate models NOT include that information, their is very little attempt on the part of the reseachers to get it included. Its not that they don't think it is important, it is just that the clouds are a bigger problem and deserve more of their attention right now.
By the way, the school I am talking about is one of the University of Clalifornia campuses.
Well, if I were you, I wouldn't listen to anything scientists say. Those grad assistants didn't have the cloud model. Nobody else must have it, either.
Well, if I were you, I wouldn't listen to anything scientists say. Those grad assistants didn't have the cloud model. Nobody else must have it, either.
I don't usually eat lunch with grad students. ...they make me work too hard during lunch time. I was eating with professors.
I don't usually eat lunch with grad students. ...they make me work too hard during lunch time. I was eating with professors.
Limbaugh and Hannity say professors are stupid. And liberal. You need to upgrade your lunch bunch.
This is from UC-Davis:
The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~leeey/stupidity/basic.htm - broken link)
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.
