Cat gotcher tongue? Excuse me?? If they can't answer the question any better than you have, why should anyone give a damn?
I'm not sure what you mean. Lol...obviously I meant we're going to have to live with the accuracy being low during this period. Maybe I should just let them explain it.
I mean you're still dodging the question, obviously. A technical issue renders pdfs unreadable on my end; but I probably wouldn't bother slogging through it anyway, given your responses.
Which question did I dodge? Like I said earlier to your original question the posted uncertainty in the link I provided incorporates all uncertainty. Berkeley Earth's peer reviewed publication goes into great detail about this. They include instrumental uncertainty, homogenization uncertainty, spatial incompleteness uncertainty, statistical uncertainty, etc. They even breakdown and quantify the uncertainty by type. They describe how much area of the Earth was sampled by year, the error margins by year in a convenient graph, and a bunch of other really interesting metrics regarding the accuracy of the dataset they provide. And this was all done by a group of skeptics like Judith Curry who didn't think the Earth was actually warming and set out to prove that all of the world's leading experts were wrong about it.
Finally, some indication that the question was at least understood. Kind of a shame I had to repeat the sonofabitch three times, but as usual, you were too busy answering questions I never asked. Now if that .15C is for surface temps, it's not very impressive.
I'm confused. What question did you ask that I didn't answer? It is for surface temperatures. I actually thought that was pretty impressive for a global mean temperature that's more than 100 years old. Are you ready to take questions from me now?
You don't say. Forget it. So <1% of the heat capacity of the biosphere - which means even if the number isn't bogus, it's still worthless. Only way either of us will find out is if you ask.
No link for your dishonest chart? No matter since anything before 1900 is at best misleading and worse a flat out lie since most of the world didn't have ANY temperature recording stations at all as these two charts shows: and, LINK
How can anyone improve the temperature data that didn't exist for over 95% of the planets surface in 1900? 99% of Southern Hemisphere with ZERO temperature data in 1900.
And these are the kinds of charts I tend to look at myself. The above chart covers around 1,000 years. And notice, it includes the "dip" in the late 19th century. It also shows the extreme colds of the Little Ice Age. But it also includes the Medieval Maximum - Medieval Warm Period. Which we only passed in the last few years (maybe). But see, I then lay this chart over that one. And an amazing thing happens, almost every case of temperature rise and fall follow the increase and decrease of radiation from the sun. So what, are humans causing the sun to burn hotter as well and emit more radiation?
It's unclear what answer you are looking for. There isn't even accurate data presently being gathered by taking surface temperature readings all over the world, so it wasn't done in the past, like 1900, except in very limited areas. Surface air temperature is related to heat content, but it isn't the same thing. Air in a desert with low humidity and air in places like the South with high humidity have very different heat content at the same temperature. The only thing that is certain, is someone will be trying to prove the world isn't warming when it is.
Why would you use Lamb data? He only drew a chart based on an assessment of things written in mostly clergy records, not temperature readings. Lamb didn't have a temperature scale on his chart or do field study around the world to support his claims.
Had it been possible to make it more clear, I'd have done it. By your own testimony, no one knows that to be the case. You get that, right?
You don't need a thermometer to know it's warming. When everything is responding in ways consistent to warming, it's warming.
There a few here and elsewhere that for one reason or another have decided to ignore all the data pointing to a heating planet in preference of denial, these individual will never change their position and are irrelevant in this issue. The thing is that so is pretty much everything else as well. Humankind is not capable of getting together to deal with this and no viable solution or plan exists regardless. Simple reality dictates that adaptation should be where our attentions lie as we are at the beginning stages of this change and the Methane effects have not yet kicked in. Personally I watch Australia to guess what summer will be in the U.S. and now live in an area that will see the minimum impacts going forward in my lifetime.
The trouble is, the earth is some 4.54 billion years old, man has recorded the weather for some 150 years or whatever. We don't know what the temperatures were 80,000 years ago, or a million or a billion. Based on collected 150 yr old data, it might have hit 35°c in a certain place and classed as a record. It could have been 40°c or 50°c some one million years ago. So all numbers are technically worthless, but hey, it's a great excuse to get the tax dollars in.
When trying to figure out the details of anything it is important to focus on that thing instead of all things. When looking at the Climate Change debate, reviewing past epochs is a distraction in details and will actually hinder the study. Keeping geological time in the background will be helpful for certain aspects of this but, it is unimportant to current realities. We are looking into the last few centuries not what the weather was like for Neanderthals. Due to the pretty clear links to industrial development the time frame is even more condensed and details far easier to come by. The denial of this correlation makes anything further rather pointless.
There really is no scientific debate with climate change. Science has nothing to do with certain manifestations of human desire, like deception. Science involves developing a body of knowledge about a particular subject and it's obvious that deception is contrary to doing that. At times, deception can feign itself to resemble science, for example, cherry pick data to present a false impression, but it's actually anti-science. It really isn't hard to figure out who is behind this deception and why, because the why always involves some kind of self-interest to have things a certain way, just like science itself has. Science has a self-interest to look for the truth and truth is the last thing deception wants revealed. Climate concerns are recent events in our history. 50 years ago, some professors may have had concerns, but the public surely didn't. An Almanac of those times shows the United States dominating the production of nearly all strategy materials. There was no rust belt, there was a steel belt around the Midwest pumping out autos and anything steel could be used for. Similar kinds of development in various degrees were happening elsewhere in developing areas of the US and the rest of the world, particularly Europe. The first major problem to develop was air quality. Many things were done to improve air quality, but the net effect of the developed world during that time was to increasingly use carbon as a fuel, reduce sulfur as a fuel and emission and reduce nitrogen oxide, a lesser greenhouse gas and acid rain contributor. We know for a fact that the eruption of a single volcano can put enough sulfur into the stratosphere to cool the Earth and, of course, the Earth eventually warms as the sulfur in the stratosphere is removed. Most of the sulfur compounds man emitted, stayed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) eventually falling as acid rain, but clouds sometimes can take sulfur compounds to the stratosphere, where they remain as a haze that reduces solar irradiance which cools the Earth. Eventually, it was only 40 years ago and the world was near the period when it will get hot and remain hot long enough to concern governments. There were still a couple of years left with no climate concerns, but the years ahead would change that. Governments eventually asked scientists to explain. About 30 years ago, the IPCC was about a year away from it's first report and by that time it's conclusions weren't a secret. The answer that the Earth was experiencing a greenhouse effect, primarily by CO2 emissions didn't bide well with certain self-interests. Consider, too, the world was changing away from a capitalist vs communist world. Of course, all the nations of the world have developed their own self-interest, the US and Europe were major players, but it's the world as a whole that counts. When you look back on the times of our world, it isn't hard to find out the architects of deception, just ask yourself who has what to gain. The Russians end up with very few people owning a cold country full of carbon to sell and the right-wing is funded by carbon selling concerns. These are two of the self-interests, the industrialized world had to deal with, but there were others with the same self-interest, then and later. China and the rest of the developing world were involved and the self-interest causing deception and the self-interest of the industrialized world became polarized. There is a big difference between carbon reduction to avoid a climate crisis and gaming to pretend it doesn't exist. The right-wing in the industrial world has been in bed with Russia for a long time and Russia states it prefers the right-wing in democracies and is anti-liberal.
Aren't you making the ASSUMPTION that if early temperature readings were unreliable, that it would make temperature rise not as drastic as climate change people claim, while in fact, if early temperature readings were faulty, the rise is temperature could be MORE drastic? Funny how climate change deniers feel that errors can only go in one direction.
London hit 33°c one day in June this year. The record was 36°c in June 1976. Does that mean climate change has gone down 3°c in 43 years?
My selective dates might be quite accurate, I mean, the climate happy clappers do believe in man made climate change using 150 years of data from the last 4.54bn years of earth's history.
