I suspect you should actually be asking whether there are measurement devices in locations where heat has CHANGED since the last previous measurement for reasons other than climate. After all, the absolute temperature being measured is less important than measuring the change. One way these cases get found is that they cause anomalies in the data.
And, you haven't shown that there is an issue related to anything you mention in your post. You're attempting to impugn NASA, NOAA, the universities and other institutions of science worldwide on the basis of what individuals here (including yourself) claim to know. That's a ridiculous tactic. If you think there is a problem, find a recognized expert and cite that.
oh whoa...Im asking you to back up your claim. Ill support your claim when I see good science. So far none of you can even tell me when your first measurement was much less show it was performed correctly.
I'm telling you you aren't choosing a rational argument. The chance that there is ANYONE on this board who knows the details of NOAA procedure, NASA procedure, or the procedures of the many other groups. It's just not a valid basis for a discussion.
RAOBs are an example of a single use instrument. It's one and done. They are handled in a special way by our xDVAR assimilation systems. Specifically they are used to calibrate other observations and this happens multiple times per day. And it's just one example of how calibration and verification are built into these reanalysis systems. I highly recommend googling for how reanalysis works and why it's so accurate.
It is assumed based on the history and competency of thousands of scientists, advanced technology, decades of verification and massive peer review.
I will not do so as it would be pointless with you. It is painfully obvious you simply wish to troll for wasted time and I have no interest in doing your bidding let alone your work. I also do not much care what you "Believe".
How do we know ANYTHING that is complex? We have multiple groups of highly qualified individuals study the issue. When it's a big issue like climate change, we have groups all over the world investigating. When it's a more open/shut issue, like whether Flint was poisoning the kids, it requires some expertise in investigative work, but it doesn't require multiple groups. That's not specific to chemistry or physics by the way. We do (or SHOULD do) the same thing when the issues are taxes, health care, immigration, national defense, etc. Trump wants to spend tens of billions for some more wall on our southern border. Who is analyzing whether that is a valid expenditure? We're not supposed to be solving these issues by emotion. We're supposed to be finding qualified experts to perform some serious analysis.
Yes. And it's not surprising that you keep finding excuses not to answer. No. I'm asking why using _multiple_ instruments to crosscheck each other is not okay. _Before_ you answer? You're not going to answer. You never do. That's the point. You make crazy unsupported claims, and then refuse to give any evidence to back them up.
Yes, they're used on all reanalysis snapshots. Reanalysis is specifically designed to use the exact same procedure for all moments in time. Again, proxy datasets have an error of about 0.05C. Reanalysis is closer to 0.01C. Considering the other things science measures with astonishing accuracy this isn't even noteworthy. For example, LIGO measures gravitational waves that distort spacetime by less 1/1000th than the width of a proton. And if that's not remarkable enough this has to be done by canceling out the noise caused by passing cars, people walking, and even the instruments own self induced spacetime rippling due to it's fleeting quantum fluctuations. And nobody has a problem with it. Yet somehow deniers think it's impossible to measure the temperature of Earth to a hundredth of a degree? There's no doubt in my mind that if wanted to measure it to within a ten-thousandth of a degree that would be possible. It's just that it's not necessary.
you dont need to calibrate at all. It depends on how much you want your data to be accepted as fact. Calibration once per year means your data isnt worth the electricity used to make your ppt slide. Its laughable that one of you claims once per year...another cites a one use and another cant even find the first measurement date much less who took the readings...yet you all are experts in global thermal differences...down to .01 degrees in fact. Do you realize how insane that looks to people who actually do science for a living? A good scientist has all this data I have asked for...as quick as he knows his own name and he doesnt ask why calibration once per year is bad nor does he need it explained. There are numerous environmental and human variables that affect instrumentation, which include anything from power outages, human mishandling, to extreme shifts and even slight shifts in environment. Good science reduces these variables and more importantly....documents them...in painful detail in order to reduce error in the data. Bad science does not and uses variables like this to bias data to match their desired beneficial result. For example you could have a low biased reading and check it against known low bias in order to lower your result and vice versa. Youd be surprised how often "scientists" try this crap. If they didnt, I wouldnt get paid so much to figure out if they are or arent doing the right thing.
Surface stations are calibrated by a technician once per year. RAOBs are launched multiple times per day. The payload is certified at manufacturing and is a one and done package of instruments. I think only 20% of the RAOBs are recovered and they are recertified if used again. There are multiple layers of calibration and quality control that go into measuring the properties of the atmosphere. And yes, a global mean temperature anomaly is accurate on the order of 0.01C. That is a fact. And it's not even that impressive compared to what's done in other disciplines of science. By the way, deniers call this calibration and quality control fraud. It's a daily theme on this forum. No, I don't. It's not insane at all. In fact, it's actually not even that impressive what atmospheric scientists are doing relative to the other scientific disciplines. And like I've already pointed out there are rigorous quality control steps. You probably haven't even bothered to look up the techniques in use have you? Yes, this is what deniers do. It's fraud plain and simple. Reanalysis most definitely does not use a known biased reading to calibrate another reading. That's stupid. Scientists want the most accurate measurements possible given the resources available to them. Yep, it happens. And they get caught pretty fast.
Obviously it very often is. After we observe objects falling to Earth every time we drop them from height, we assume something is compelling them to do so and have called it Gravity. We note the increase in volume as water changes temperature and assume it is due to the properties of the compound. I assume the mixture of materials combined specifically and in an exacting way will conduct electrons and allow my computer to display what I just typed.
do you assume your medicine was properly prepared? Do you assume your water is safe to drink, or do you rely on good science behind that?
