A poll what does this thermometer read?

[CrusaderFrank]

What it reads is irrelevant, what matters is how much we must adjust the baseline to prove man-made global climate warming change or whatever they're calling it today

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Was there any point to this thread, other than that bear and the other deniers are failing hilariously at basic statistics, failing so badly that they don't have any idea of how badly they've failed?

That is the point everyone else is taking away from it.

You denier loons stink at the science, and that's why you're laughed at. It's not because of a socialist conspiracy. It's because you're incompetent cult clowns.

^ tried to convince us that you can get an accurate measurement to a tenth of a degree simply by taking the mathematical average of any 2 data points even if only accurate to 5 degrees

 

[mamooth]

Frank, if you're not just having another hysterical meltdown over getting spanked, point out where I ever said something that crazy. Oh wait, you can't. You're just lying again. It's kind of what defines you now.

It's not my fault, deniers, that the rules of statistics, which have been known for centuries, keep pointing out that you're morons. Looks like you'll have to add statistics to your list of disciplines that are part of TheVastSecretGlobalSocialistConspiracy. The list would probably be much shorter if you only listed what wasn't part of the conspiracy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Taking a simple unscientific poll what does this thermometer read? Pretend you are a scientist in 1902 and have to read and record a thermometer every day.

And where is your 1902 calibration certification?

A bucket of water filled with ice cubes.... let set for about 15 min and read. it should read 32 degree's F or 0 deg Celsius...place that date and time of check on the station log form with the reading observed.

Even back then they understood the tools they were using...

A bucket of water with ice in it can be anywhere from 32.1 to 50 degrees F.
Second issue is the purity of the water. Water with high mineral content will freeze at a different temperature than pure water.

The differences are so small with average water that it has about a +/- 0.5 deg F is well within the ranges.. But it was easily done by any weather observer to verify the item was within its normal operating range..

After 15 min the water in the bucket is normalized.. if there was ice remaining it was at or near freezing water surrounding it.

 

[Moonglow]

A poll what does this thermometer read?


I was unaware that thermometers could read...

 

[Crick]

It looks to me to read 38.8, but you offered nothing close. Anyone with reasonable vision reading a reasonable scale should be able to estimate readings to one tenth of the smallest division. Thus, your thermometer can be read to a tenth of a degree. Accuracy would be well within +/- 0.2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It looks to me to read 38.8, but you offered nothing close. Anyone with reasonable vision reading a reasonable scale should be able to estimate readings to one tenth of the smallest division. Thus, your thermometer can be read to a tenth of a degree. Accuracy would be well within +/- 0.2.

Yeah 38.8

LOL

38.853

LOL

 

[Billy_Bob]

It looks to me to read 38.8, but you offered nothing close. Anyone with reasonable vision reading a reasonable scale should be able to estimate readings to one tenth of the smallest division. Thus, your thermometer can be read to a tenth of a degree. Accuracy would be well within +/- 0.2.

\what a crock of crick bullshit...

So you have a calibrated eye and you can determine the tools accuracy too...

There is a reason NOAA gave these weather observes a hand book over 100 years ago. Its called consistency in accuracy.... something you obviously know nothing about..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It looks to me to read 38.8, but you offered nothing close. Anyone with reasonable vision reading a reasonable scale should be able to estimate readings to one tenth of the smallest division. Thus, your thermometer can be read to a tenth of a degree. Accuracy would be well within +/- 0.2.

If you can get such awesome, accurate readings why did you have to adjust the baseline by 4F to make your theory work?

 

[Wyatt earp]

It looks to me to read 38.8, but you offered nothing close. Anyone with reasonable vision reading a reasonable scale should be able to estimate readings to one tenth of the smallest division. Thus, your thermometer can be read to a tenth of a degree. Accuracy would be well within +/- 0.2.

Now part of my point:


I am 51 years old, 12 years ago I had perfect 20/20 vision ( I know that because when I moved to south Carolina had to take a vision test)gradually over the past 8 years my vision got worse and worse. I didn't even know my vision was going bad untill I was reading a bible outloud and someone handed me a pair of glasses.


Today I need the strongest reading glasses they have


I wrote those answers what I could see, with my glasses on and didn't blow it up with my phone.



Do you see where I am getting at?????

Just because you have 20/20 vision don't mean everyone does.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It looks to me to read 38.8, but you offered nothing close. Anyone with reasonable vision reading a reasonable scale should be able to estimate readings to one tenth of the smallest division. Thus, your thermometer can be read to a tenth of a degree. Accuracy would be well within +/- 0.2.

\what a crock of crick bullshit...

So you have a calibrated eye and you can determine the tools accuracy too...

There is a reason NOAA gave these weather observes a hand book over 100 years ago. Its called consistency in accuracy.... something you obviously know nothing about..

I still can " feel" down to a thousands of an inch with a micrometer but to read a scale like that to the 10th of a degree ? Maybe he has bioinc vision or something?

 

[cnm]

Do you see where I am getting at?????

Yes. Irrelevant deflections.

 

[Crick]

And no cheating by blowing it up, you don't have that luxury in 1902.
.

Yeah, the magnifying lens wasn't invented till much later.

 

[mamooth]

Do you see where I am getting at?????.

No. Explain it to us.

Are you claiming that station observers with bad eyesight always read the thermometer wrong in a certain direction?

Because that's the only error that would matter, a consistent bias in one direction. If the error was equally likely to go either way, it would average out to nothing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

38.8023456F plus or minus 3 degrees

 

[Billy_Bob]

The amazing thing about most of the individuals here on this forum can be seen in this poll.

Scientific data must be done the same each time and with the same precision. The NWS hand book demonstrates that the 1 degree increment is to be notated that is fully covered. Most of those here jump the number up because it appears closer, but that is not how it is to be done. Damn Common Core rounding up instead of following instructions..

If we placed this standard in relation to how the majority of people think you can see plainly why the record is so screwed up.

IN science, procedure is paramount or your data becomes garbage... if you round up you will always get a positive bias, kind of like NOAA is doing to the whole historical record now...

 

[bripat9643]

Taking a simple unscientific poll what does this thermometer read? Pretend you are a scientist in 1902 and have to read and record a thermometer every day.

38.8 degrees

However that's not the point. It makes no difference really. As long as the person reading it is being consistent.

What makes you think the same person reads it everyday?

 

[mamooth]

Scientific data must be done the same each time and with the same precision.

No, that's totally wrong.

As is typical with every denier, you're completely ignorant of basic statistics, and you have no business bothering the grownups with your childish flapyap. That would be why all the grownups are ignoring your cult now.