http://news.yahoo.com/u-noaa-says-2014-hottest-record-reports-155625951.html Just wondering: are climatologists suggesting that we have reliable temperature data from ALL over the Earth, from 70, 90, 110 years ago? Seems a bit absurd to me. How can anyone claim that we have RELIABLE temperature data from southwest Asia, all of Africa, all of Latin America, from all these many years ago? Did we have weather stations all over these places?
120,000 years ago. 340,000 years ago. 410,000 years ago. temperatures were much warmer than today.....but CO2 ppm was lower. why?
No, but we have enough data from 70, 90, 110 years ago to statistically rule out the possibility that global temperatures then could have been as high as today. Local temperature anomalies are strongly correlated spatially, across hundreds of kilometers. Thus only a few thermometers are needed to build an accurate picture of global temperatures. - - - Updated - - - Because it takes a long time to heat up the ocean, and the CO2 we have recently added to the air has had only a very short time to act. If global CO2 were to stop rising today, the oceans would continue to heat for decades, because of all the CO2 we have already added in the past. In other words, there is still a lot of unrealized heat in the pipeline.
how do we know particulate air poluttion won't block out enough sun to prevent the oceans from warming?
Because particulates only stay in the air for a very short time, while CO2 stays in the air for centuries. Thus particulates are dependent primarily on the current rate of coal burning (which goes up and down) while CO2 is dependent on the total amount of fossil fuels burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (which only goes up).
When plants decay, they return their carbon to the ocean or atmosphere. The ocean/atmosphere/biosphere cycle is fast acting. The only way to remove large amounts of carbon permanently (or nearly so) from the ocean/atmosphere/biosphere cycle is when it is absorbed into the lithosphere, and that takes centuries.
Approximately one fifth of CO2 rise is due to deforestation http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090729/full/news.2009.752.html Bottom line is that although plants DO absorb CO2 they can't if they have been uprooted and burnt And this brings us to your question about temperatures - you might be able to fool a thermometer but you cannot so easily fool nature - and we can SEE the ecology changing
Why? did they have NIST calibrated thermometers 120 years ago? Im still waiting for those calibration records and instrument logbooks. We will discuss training once I see the results of the calibrations.
Believe it or not, neither the boiling point nor freezing point of water has not changed in the last 100 years. Calibrating a thermometer isn't hard (in the first place) and isn't even all that important when dealing with anomalies rather than absolute temperatures (in the second place).
Science is not limited to direct observations like thermometers. Ever heard about temperature proxies like ice cores, tree rings, sub-fossil pollen, boreholes, corals, lake and ocean sediments?
Believe it or not, Ive calibrated thermometers in my 30 year scientific career thousands of times. Each thermometer can be way off or not. And each of them can change with time due to their environmental factors. (like taking one calibrated in Alaska and using it in Fla. That's why you calibrate them and each one (when used for accuracy) has a valid correction factor that is routinely checked and applied to it. This check is accompanied by a verified and audited logbook. If you don't have it, then your temperature recording is not valid. Period. Show me the logbooks for the temperatures they are citing to show the globe has warmed.
I've worked in the Science field collecting, auditing and programming systems for data collection of scientific data for over 30 years. If you don't have these records, your data isn't worth the paper you recorded it on. This is remedial record keeping. Show me the records.
If you've been doing this for 30 years, then you should know that calibration records and instrument logbooks are retained by the people collecting the data, not the ones analyzing it.
yes and before any scientist puts their reputation on the line they check them. Its called an "audit".
A NASA scientist said, if we cut co2 production today by 80 percent, the earth would still warm for at least 500 years. So, the warming will continue, regardless of what is done with co2. If technology keeps advancing at the rate it has advanced in the last 100 years, chances are in another hundred years, we won't be using fossil fuels for energy, so it kinda takes care of itself, so no need for the hysterics from the hysterical Left. If the Left was really serious about his problem, they would be going after land management as a way to reduce co2 levels, and there would be a worldwide push for each person to plant some trees. But what has happened, by concentrating on taxing fossil fuel use, the cap and trade scheme, is that this is just the way the UN is trying to redistribute income from the rich nations to the poor. Of course those revenenues would pass through several elite hands, so they could dip their beak in it, which is how these things always work. By the time the elites got their share for handling the transfer of money to the poor nations, the poor nations might get 25 cents on the dollar. You can also bet that with cap and trade, some of these UN chaps have positioned themselves so they can dip their own beaks in the flow of revenues. Until the hysterical start pushing for much more than carbon tax, I cannot and will not take them as being seriously concerned. I will take them as just being the sort of human that gets hysterical about particular things. These are not serious people. I think its hard for dimwits to actually be serious. This deal is just another confidence game, a way to con people, so that money can be made from it. And you won't be one of the people profiting from it. No sir, you will be the one paying. These cons have always existed in some form, and will continue to exist for as long as we have greedy elites, who's greed can never ever be satiated. Most of the elites are clearly sociopaths. So sociopaths run this world, and you wonder why no one can ever fix anything? LOL
With over 90,000 land based stations worldwide, no climate scientist is going to "audit" the data to the level you're expecting. The people who provide these stations, like NOAA in the US and the UK's MET Office, have the responsibility to monitor all of those stations and determine their accuracy. If you are looking for calibration records and instrument logbooks, that's where you should start.
That's like saying a ship heading for some rocks shouldn't cut its engines because it going to stop when it hits the rocks anyway. The question isn't can we prevent temperature from rising, but how much of an increase can we live with. Why do people who won't even admit there is a problem think they know better how to address it?
Lets start with the first of the 90000 you just cited. Provide me with the records and logbooks from the first year it collected data along with the names of the individuals and their training records. If you cant back up your data with the records then your data is an opinion.
I suggest you call NOAA or the MET Office, since they are the ones managing most of them. Let me know what they say when you tell them their data is only "an opinion".
You man made warmers are the ones making the claim, until you back up the claim with valid data, your claim is worthless. Can you even tell me what kind of instrument was used to measure the first recorded temperature?
You can sneer at the dataset all you like but bad ;data is not causing the environmental changes we are seeing
