What? You think scientists are so stupid they haven't thought about all these problems long before you came up with them? Not likely. They've been wrestling with the problem for decades.
They go through the different versions until they reach the one that convinces their target audience, and as a last resort fall back on economic fantasy.
While I agree with your point, we can't track CO2 molecules to find out where they came from (yet? maybe someday. advances in physics? not today.) so this statement is unsupportable, and it's not _strictly_ true anyway.
While we can't track the source of individual CO2 molecules we can measure the ratio of 12C to 13C in the atmosphere. Because photosynthesis prefers the 12C isotope the fossil fuels from plants have a higher ratio of 12C to 13C than the atmosphere. The measured ratio has been changing as expected if the source of the added CO2 is fossil fuels.
I imagine that a number of those centuries old thermometers still exist so it's easy to measure their accuracy. Accurate thermometers have existed since at least the 1700's. We may be able to measure with more precision now-a-days but I don't think the accuracy is that much better (I'm talking about repeatable accuracy, even if a thermometer is off by 2 degrees it can still accurately show how temperature is changing over time).
After surfacestations came out with their list scientists decided to check it out. They compared the temperature trends for well sited weather stations to the temperature trends for poorly sited stations. They found that the poorly sited stations actually have a slightly lower temperature trend than the well sited stations.
NOAA used the site ratings by surfacestations.org to construct two national time series. One was the full data set, using all weather stations. The other used only Class 1 or Class 2 weather stations, classified as good or best.
Yes, to bring it back to a concrete example that most can understand in baseball your batting average is composed of measurements that are either a 1 or a 0. Yet they commonly calculate batting averages to 3 decimal places. Even if a thermometer is only accurate to +/- 1 degree it's still reasonable to calculate to several decimal places when you combine thousands of measurements.
Yes, to bring it back to a concrete example that most can understand in baseball your batting average is composed of measurements that are either a 1 or a 0. Yet they commonly calculate batting averages to 3 decimal places. Even if a thermometer is only accurate to +/- 1 degree it's still reasonable to calculate to several decimal places when you combine thousands of measurements.
taking measurements from inaccurate thermometers and scant coverage from over a century ago, and claiming we know global average temperatures in the 19th century is beyond ludicrous. No amount of massaging of data can make credible comparison to today's grid of sensors.
The coverage was fairly scant at the time but accurate thermometers have been around since at least the 1700's.
The warming and cooling of the past million years was largely driven by orbital changes collectively known as Milankovitch Cycles. But those cycles operate on scales of 10,000 to 100,000 years. The changes in them over the past 200 years have almost zero effect and what effect they do have is trending toward cooling after they reached a peak about 10,000 years ago.
What the ocean have do they have done for all of time (at least as long as we care about). But on short time scales there are periods when more of the heat goes in the oceans and periods when more goes into the atmosphere. Quasi-cyclical things such as ENSO, the PDO. the AMO affect how much heat is absorbed by the oceans vs.the atmosphere. In the long run though they average out to zero effect.
What has significantly changed in the oceans so that they do not play a role any other year except when it appears to be cooling or the warming lapsed?
Sigh...
Are you on about that again? Nothing has significantly changed in the oceans. They still do what they do. What's changed is the level of data we have about them since the Argo floats were deployed starting in 2002.
That depends on what you mean by modified. The data have been adjusted to account for a sorts of things that cause problems with the temperature record such as changes in instrument, changes in weather station location, changes in the time of day of observations, changes in the environment around the weather stations. Scientists wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't account for and make adjustments for those issues.
If you think they modified the temperature records just to produce a result they wanted then it's up to you to prove it scientifically.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point, I'm borrowing it.
When you combine the readings from hundreds of weather stations the law of large numbers comes into effect. My comparison is apt.
What? You think scientists are so stupid they haven't thought about all these problems long before you came up with them? Not likely. They've been wrestling with the problem for decades.
When you combine a bunch of stations to get a global average temperature the law of large numbers applies.
They go through the different versions until they reach the one that convinces their target audience, and as a last resort fall back on economic fantasy.
FTFY
While I agree with your point, we can't track CO2 molecules to find out where they came from (yet? maybe someday. advances in physics? not today.) so this statement is unsupportable, and it's not _strictly_ true anyway.
While we can't track the source of individual CO2 molecules we can measure the ratio of 12C to 13C in the atmosphere. Because photosynthesis prefers the 12C isotope the fossil fuels from plants have a higher ratio of 12C to 13C than the atmosphere. The measured ratio has been changing as expected if the source of the added CO2 is fossil fuels.
Obligatory xkcd.
Yes, as the Sun ages it gets brighter. Graph
Earth provably warmer in the "recent" (less than 12,000 years) past, and moreover that higher peak held for 3,000 years from 7500 B.C.
You won't be able to say that in 2100 unless we get real serious about the problem.
I imagine that a number of those centuries old thermometers still exist so it's easy to measure their accuracy. Accurate thermometers have existed since at least the 1700's. We may be able to measure with more precision now-a-days but I don't think the accuracy is that much better (I'm talking about repeatable accuracy, even if a thermometer is off by 2 degrees it can still accurately show how temperature is changing over time).
After surfacestations came out with their list scientists decided to check it out. They compared the temperature trends for well sited weather stations to the temperature trends for poorly sited stations. They found that the poorly sited stations actually have a slightly lower temperature trend than the well sited stations.
Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
NOAA used the site ratings by surfacestations.org to construct two national time series. One was the full data set, using all weather stations. The other used only Class 1 or Class 2 weather stations, classified as good or best.
Even if the thermometers are biased one way or the other it is still possible to discern how temperatures are changing over time.
I repeat what I posted just above: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
Yes, to bring it back to a concrete example that most can understand in baseball your batting average is composed of measurements that are either a 1 or a 0. Yet they commonly calculate batting averages to 3 decimal places. Even if a thermometer is only accurate to +/- 1 degree it's still reasonable to calculate to several decimal places when you combine thousands of measurements.
Yes, to bring it back to a concrete example that most can understand in baseball your batting average is composed of measurements that are either a 1 or a 0. Yet they commonly calculate batting averages to 3 decimal places. Even if a thermometer is only accurate to +/- 1 degree it's still reasonable to calculate to several decimal places when you combine thousands of measurements.
taking measurements from inaccurate thermometers and scant coverage from over a century ago, and claiming we know global average temperatures in the 19th century is beyond ludicrous. No amount of massaging of data can make credible comparison to today's grid of sensors.
The coverage was fairly scant at the time but accurate thermometers have been around since at least the 1700's.
Third option, the author of that story is full of shit.
Yes, long before him. Gilbert Plass published a paper in 1956 titled:
Plass, G.N., 1956, The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change, Tellus VIII, 2. (1956), p. 140-154.
ROTFLMAO! We've added so much CO2 to the atmosphere that there's no chance of that for thousands of years.
And before it was Global Warming it was Climate Change clear back to at least the 1950's.
Plass, G.N., 1956, The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change, Tellus VIII, 2. (1956), p. 140-154.
Of course the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988.
It doesn't matter what you call it. It matters what the effects are.
LOL, maybe so but I'm willing to adjust my veiwpoint when I get new information.
The warming and cooling of the past million years was largely driven by orbital changes collectively known as Milankovitch Cycles. But those cycles operate on scales of 10,000 to 100,000 years. The changes in them over the past 200 years have almost zero effect and what effect they do have is trending toward cooling after they reached a peak about 10,000 years ago.
What the ocean have do they have done for all of time (at least as long as we care about). But on short time scales there are periods when more of the heat goes in the oceans and periods when more goes into the atmosphere. Quasi-cyclical things such as ENSO, the PDO. the AMO affect how much heat is absorbed by the oceans vs.the atmosphere. In the long run though they average out to zero effect.
Here is a graph of raw data vs. adjusted data from the GHCN. The difference isn't large enough to affect the conclusions.
Why the data was adjusted and the logic for it are available in the scientific papers on the subject. Here is a document that discusses the reasons and methods of adjustments for the USHCN. I you want more detail you'll have to dig for it yourself.
*GHCN/USHCN = Global/United States Historical Climatology Network
Sigh..
What has significantly changed in the oceans so that they do not play a role any other year except when it appears to be cooling or the warming lapsed?
Sigh ...
Are you on about that again? Nothing has significantly changed in the oceans. They still do what they do. What's changed is the level of data we have about them since the Argo floats were deployed starting in 2002.
That depends on what you mean by modified. The data have been adjusted to account for a sorts of things that cause problems with the temperature record such as changes in instrument, changes in weather station location, changes in the time of day of observations, changes in the environment around the weather stations. Scientists wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't account for and make adjustments for those issues.
If you think they modified the temperature records just to produce a result they wanted then it's up to you to prove it scientifically.