Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 17, 2008 20:27:03 GMT -4
Well, it appears to be a graph exactly illustrating your point, which immediately makes me very suspicious. For example, since, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, NASA says that 1934 is the hottest year on record, why isn't 1934 the highest point on this graph? Where thermometers in 1860 and the men making the observations really accurate enough to record a 0.4 degree difference, as this graph implies? From what sources was this information compiled, and were any techniques used to "massage" the data? Where is the key to the symbols used on the graph? I assume that the gray is maximum variation and the red is the mean, but is that correct?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jul 18, 2008 5:18:27 GMT -4
The Vernier scale was invented in 1631; 229 years would seem to be long enough to apply it to thermometry. Just because measurements are old does not mean that they are inaccurate or imprecise.
Edit for inaccurate spelling
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 18, 2008 10:32:12 GMT -4
Because NASA doesn't say that 1934 was the hottest year on record. It says 1934 was the hottest year on record for the continental United States -- not for the entire globe.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 18, 2008 11:04:57 GMT -4
Happy birthday! Seriously. Sorry all I got you was a graph.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 18, 2008 14:54:11 GMT -4
The Vernier scale was invented in 1631; 229 years would seem to be long enough to apply it to thermometry. Just because measurements are old does not mean that they are inaccurate or imprecise. Are you suggesting all the temperature measurements used to form this combined figure were made using calipers? My point was that it seems reasonable to assume that less total measurements were made in 1860 and that the equipment in most cases may have been less accurate overall. No doubt some were very precise, but I would guess that this is a composite from many data sources, not one hyper-accurate thermometer. Then again, many temperature sources today have questionable placement of their sensors. There's a webpage out there that shows photos of temperature sensors in parking lots and next to building air conditioners.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 18, 2008 14:54:30 GMT -4
Happy birthday! Seriously. Sorry all I got you was a graph. Thank you. At least it's colorful.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 18, 2008 15:04:04 GMT -4
Because NASA doesn't say that 1934 was the hottest year on record. It says 1934 was the hottest year on record for the continental United States -- not for the entire globe. Actually I believe I saw that in a page I looked at when quoting that fact. I believe they also said that about 40% of the data used to compile most global climate reports come from US stations, despite our only having about 2% of the Earth's surface area. I wonder if that affects the data any?
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 18, 2008 18:18:24 GMT -4
That would be an interesting thing for you to find out.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 20, 2008 10:22:28 GMT -4
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 20, 2008 12:05:45 GMT -4
I find arguments from authority against global warming to be just as compelling as using such arguments for it.
Since when is the opinion of the APS "global warming science"? Shouldn't the term "science" be restricted to the data and theories rather than the opinions of the scientists?
1934 apparently was the hottest year on record in the continental U.S. The most interesting part of that story is that NASA previously said that 1998 was the hottest year, but apparently had something of a Y2K problem that skewed their results. It's interesting because it shows that climate scientists are capable of making elementary mistakes that essentially completely erase their results, since we're dealing with such small overall changes in temperature.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 20, 2008 19:54:49 GMT -4
Here is what NASA says about 1934:
A minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only the contiguous 48 states and only the several years in the 21st century.
The data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record and the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states, the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis in the flawed analysis and in the published GISS analysis, 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (but not globally) by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the certainty.
Not exactly something that turns global warming science on its head.
So -- do you think the Earth is warming? If not, why?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 20, 2008 21:53:05 GMT -4
So -- do you think the Earth is warming? If not, why? I already answered that question. The far more important issue to me is whether or not it can be proven that humans are damaging the climate, not whether the climate is really changing. As I said, it changes all the time.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 21, 2008 11:04:15 GMT -4
I'll be patient. Let me put it another way. Do you have any factual reason for not believing the graph I showed you?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 21, 2008 11:17:00 GMT -4
Do you have any factual reason for not believing the graph I showed you? Does he have any factual reason to believe it?
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Jul 21, 2008 11:34:02 GMT -4
While I have not given footnotes on the graph, I have stated plainly where it came from. Jason's one factual objection to this point turned out to be false. I am asking if he has other factual objections.
|
|