In 1880 How Did They Take The Earth's Temperature???

[healthmyths]

Who is penalized by skyrocketing utility rates... not Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio who's net worth is $220 million., or Al Gore's net worth of $300 million or Obama, net worth of $12.2 million dollars.... yet these same "elitists" that want the less well off people ... people without private jets, or multi-million dollar incomes to pay the preponderance of the CO2 tax in the form of as Obama said "skyrocketing" utility rates...all the while he forces coal workers out of jobs and coal burning plants to go bankrupt.
It is not to me a very smart move for the "smartest" president.

Why not figure out how to lower the costs of EPA compliance rather then ways to put utilities out of business?
It is pure ignorance on the part of the Obama crowd that utilities without any profit can stay in business but that's what Obama has said:
So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…”
– Barack Obama speaking to San Francisco Chronicle, January 2008
HOW f..k.. stupid! Why would ANYONE much less the President want businesses to go bankrupt? Ignorance that's why!

 

[Theowl32]

It's the deniers that are lying all the time. Does CO2 have the ability to absorb energy? Has the concentration in the atmosphere been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution? If those two statements are true, who's really lying when they call AGW a hoax?

In science, you have to actually establish the relationship between two things. I lived and worked, then died. That does not establish work killed me.

OK, dumb fuck, here is the relationship for GHGs and the absorption of heat by our atmosphere in detail;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Makes you wonder why with all the CO2 why there has been no warming over the last 18 years.

Do any of you morons ever ask if it is truly warming that why there is a concerted movement to change the terminology from global warming to climate change.

Do you have an explanation why all of the politicians around the world have all changed the term? If it is truly warming and all of the warming is due to man, then why change the term?

Go ahead, let us know why they would change it from warming, if it is continuously warming.

You do not think it has anything to do with the facts regarding there has not been any warming for close to 20 years and that the ice expanse has more than doubled in that time in the North and South poles?

Well, what is your "educated" explanation?

Well, dumb fuck, when have the warmest years recorded occurred? In the last 20 years, that is when. No warming, yet these are the warmest years recorded? No, the ice has not doubled, either at the north or south pole. You are not only a flap-yapper, you are liar.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png

Oh, so you are not going to even take a guess as to why there is a concerted to effort to change it from warming to climate change?

Not even an attempt. No "educated" guess?

Oh, and another thing. Perhaps you are not up on current news. I do not know.

Antarctic sea ice continues to grow beyond record coverage - ABC News Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Antarctic sea ice continues to grow beyond record coverage

Antarctic sea ice is expected to grow into unprecedented territory in the next two weeks, a scientist has said.

Last week, sea ice in the south pole covered more than 20 million square kilometres for the first time since records began.

Dr Jan Lieser from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC), based in Hobart, said sea ice extent in the Southern Ocean was expected to peak within the next fortnight.

"This is the third year in a row that sea ice extent in the Antarctic has reached a recorded maximum, and the first time on record that it has exceeded 20 million square kilometres," Dr Lieser said.

Antarctic sea ice hit its all time record on September 13 and has continued to grow ever since.

-----------------------------------

Don't worry though man. The guy claims that the ice expanse is a result of "global warming" though, so you can still have your myth.

So, to review, everything that happens in the environment is a result of THE GLOBAL WARMING.

Ice expanding....THE GLOBAL WARMING
Ice reducing......THE GLOBAL WARMING
Hurricanes in 2005......THE GLOBAL WARMING
No hurricane has hit the US that is cat 3 or stronger since 2005......THE GLOBAL WARMING
Earthquakes.....THE GLOBAL WARMING
A cat ONE hurricane hits New Jersey.....THE GLOBAL WARMING.

Oh yeah, and meteors coming close to earth....THE GLOBAL WARMING. LOL.



Look at that......I mean holy shit.

---------------------------

I will be waiting for you to explain to me why the concerted effort to change the terminology. Your best "educated" guess.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It's the deniers that are lying all the time. Does CO2 have the ability to absorb energy? Has the concentration in the atmosphere been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution? If those two statements are true, who's really lying when they call AGW a hoax?

The 11,000 weather stations since 1880s have been the core basis for measuring global temperature. Satellite digital temperatures has been a recent development and as a result the entire argument the earth is getting warmer is based on this history.
Would you agree?
So the cumulative temperature readings i.e. all temps collectively show an increase is the premise right?

Are you aware that NOAA :
"Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
Distorted data Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they re situated to report warming Fox News

There are over 11,000 weather stations around the world measuring land, air and sea temperatures, as well as satellites, ships and aircraft that also take measurements. Climate Observation Networks and Systems WMO

So the basis of "global warming" theory has been these 11,000 weather stations around the world.
So again explain to a novice like me:

when NOAA closes 600 stations because they've distorted temperatures..
and
when "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations,
those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit

why with human errors of reading the mercury thermometer and human errors in transcribing how can there be such precision of an increase of 1.38 degrees in one year as currently touted?

1.38 degrees... think about before digital could you distinguish on a mercury thermometer 78 and 79 degrees?

... this world needs idiots too.

But surely you agree that it was not necessary to elect one to prove that.

only an idiot would dismiss 1.38 degrees ... and only an idiot would dismiss scientific data from several groups of scientists and accept scientific data from another group of scientists ...

umm, wut?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's the deniers that are lying all the time. Does CO2 have the ability to absorb energy? Has the concentration in the atmosphere been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution? If those two statements are true, who's really lying when they call AGW a hoax?

In science, you have to actually establish the relationship between two things. I lived and worked, then died. That does not establish work killed me.

OK, dumb fuck, here is the relationship for GHGs and the absorption of heat by our atmosphere in detail;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Makes you wonder why with all the CO2 why there has been no warming over the last 18 years.

Do any of you morons ever ask if it is truly warming that why there is a concerted movement to change the terminology from global warming to climate change.

Do you have an explanation why all of the politicians around the world have all changed the term? If it is truly warming and all of the warming is due to man, then why change the term?

Go ahead, let us know why they would change it from warming, if it is continuously warming.

You do not think it has anything to do with the facts regarding there has not been any warming for close to 20 years and that the ice expanse has more than doubled in that time in the North and South poles?

Well, what is your "educated" explanation?

Well, dumb fuck, when have the warmest years recorded occurred? In the last 20 years, that is when. No warming, yet these are the warmest years recorded? No, the ice has not doubled, either at the north or south pole. You are not only a flap-yapper, you are liar.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png

Tell them about the Deep Pacific Ocean! And those Oregon Oysters

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe the Deep Pacific Ocean was 10 degrees warmer than today?

 

[konradv]

i'

So the basis of "global warming" theory has been these 11,000 weather stations around the world.
So again explain to a novice like me:

No problem. The basis of AGW has NOTHING to do with what the temperature actually is. It has to do with the emission of GHGs and what happens to the absorbed energy. I hope that helps, because you seem to be accepting the arguments of those who come at it from a political angle and make every attempt to confuse people on the science. If there are any hoaxes involved, it's on the part of the people payed to destroy to theory by any means possible, fair or foul.

So you are saying the temperature readings are meaningless? Tell that to NOAA.

I'm saying that by fixating on temps and crowing about any lack of change over the last decade misses the point that CO2 absorbs anergy and to ignore it is to ignore the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Bullshit, themodynamics? So which experiment shows a lesser energy makes a greater energy stronger. Cold transfers to hot and makes hot hotter?

Never been proved never will.

It's like all common sense is obfuscated by so called, "science".

Post the relevant study if you believe otherwise. Not a link to an article telling us what to believe.

What experiment? When I go to bed in winter I use a blanket to keep me warm even though the blanket is colder than my body. If you think what you said makes more sense than that, you're the one that needs to cite a study. I'm afraid that by taking "obfuscation by science" route, you've just proven yourself to be a parrot willing to repeat whatever fits your bias, because your knowledge of what's really happening is sorely lacking.

 

[konradv]

It's the deniers that are lying all the time. Does CO2 have the ability to absorb energy? Has the concentration in the atmosphere been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution? If those two statements are true, who's really lying when they call AGW a hoax?

In science, you have to actually establish the relationship between two things. I lived and worked, then died. That does not establish work killed me.

OK, dumb fuck, here is the relationship for GHGs and the absorption of heat by our atmosphere in detail;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Makes you wonder why with all the CO2 why there has been no warming over the last 18 years.

Do any of these morons ever ask if it is truly warming that why there is a concerted movement to change the terminology from global warming to climate change.

Does any liberal have an explanation why all of the politicians around the world have all changed the term? If it is truly warming and all of the warming is due to man, then why change the term?

Go ahead, let us know why they would change it from warming, if it is continuously warming.

The morons on the left do not think it has anything to do with the facts regarding the climate, that there has not been any warming for close to 20 years and that the ice expanse has more than doubled in that time in the North and South poles?

Well, what is your "educated" explanation?

Why do the deniers talk about "cycles", whenever there's a heating spell but claim "proof" of non-existence of AGW, just because there's a pause? Sounds like people that I'll parrot whatever fits their bias, because it's obvious their science isn't up to snuff.

 

[elektra]

i'

So you are saying the temperature readings are meaningless? Tell that to NOAA.

I'm saying that by fixating on temps and crowing about any lack of change over the last decade misses the point that CO2 absorbs anergy and to ignore it is to ignore the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Bullshit, themodynamics? So which experiment shows a lesser energy makes a greater energy stronger. Cold transfers to hot and makes hot hotter?

Never been proved never will.

It's like all common sense is obfuscated by so called, "science".

Post the relevant study if you believe otherwise. Not a link to an article telling us what to believe.

What experiment? When I go to bed in winter I use a blanket to keep me warm even though the blanket is colder than my body. If you think what you said makes more sense than that, you're the one that needs to cite a study. I'm afraid that by taking "obfuscation by science" route, you've just proven yourself to be a parrot willing to repeat whatever fits your bias, because your knowledge of what's really happening is sorely lacking.

you think a colder object makes you warm? do you think co2 is warming you under the blanket? its like a mini global warming environment? you and your blanky

 

[elektra]

No problem. The basis of AGW has NOTHING to do with what the temperature actually is. It has to do with the emission of GHGs and what happens to the absorbed energy. I hope that helps, because you seem to be accepting the arguments of those who come at it from a political angle and make every attempt to confuse people on the science. If there are any hoaxes involved, it's on the part of the people payed to d

What experiment? When I go to bed in winter I use a blanket to keep me warm even though the blanket is colder than my body. If you think what you said makes more sense than that, you're the one that needs to cite a study. I'm afraid that by taking "obfuscation by science" route, you've just proven yourself to be a parrot willing to repeat whatever fits your bias, because your knowledge of what's really happening is sorely lacking.

you think a colder object makes you warm? do you think co2 is warming you under the blanket? its like a mini global warming environment? you and your blanky

 

[TheOldSchool]

In 1880 How Did They Take The Earth's Temperature???

In 1880? Hmm I'm not sure. Hey republicans how do you guys figure out what temperature it is?

 

[elektra]

The obvious point is, whatever data or temperatures are available from the past, it was too little of little accuracy, hence all the science works to create temperatures where there is no record because it was never measured.

Our data or measurements, only go back a little time. In the 1800's, you think there are scientific measurements we compare today to, Louis and Clark, Powell, what more than that existed back then?

 

[Theowl32]

The obvious point is, whatever data or temperatures are available from the past, it was too little of little accuracy, hence all the science works to create temperatures wit was never measured.

Our data or measurements, only go back a little time. In the 1800's, you think there are scientific measurements we compare today to, Louis and Clark, Powell, what more than that existed back then?

Which one of the big reasons governments around the world are exploiting the gravy train, better known as environmental regulations.

Ever see the amounts that is being generated in the form of rivers of monetary gain?

 

[Vigilante]

How did they take it temperature?.....

One BIG FUCKING thermometer, that's how!

 

[elektra]

well, the liberal/democrats are the media, they are cnn, they are the local broadcasts, hence they dictate, we have no voice.

 

[occupied]

This OP is sponsored by the fine folks of America's fossil fuel industry, fueling politics for over one hundred years.

 

[konradv]

No problem. The basis of AGW has NOTHING to do with what the temperature actually is. It has to do with the emission of GHGs and what happens to the absorbed energy. I hope that helps, because you seem to be accepting the arguments of those who come at it from a political angle and make every attempt to confuse people on the science. If there are any hoaxes involved, it's on the part of the people payed to d

What experiment? When I go to bed in winter I use a blanket to keep me warm even though the blanket is colder than my body. If you think what you said makes more sense than that, you're the one that needs to cite a study. I'm afraid that by taking "obfuscation by science" route, you've just proven yourself to be a parrot willing to repeat whatever fits your bias, because your knowledge of what's really happening is sorely lacking.

you think a colder object makes you warm? do you think co2 is warming you under the blanket? its like a mini global warming environment? you and your blanky

If you know what happens to the energy that CO2 absorbs, let us know. If not, STFU.

 

[konradv]

well, the liberal/democrats are the media, they are cnn, they are the local broadcasts, hence they dictate, we have no voice.

If you're going to lie, do you deserve one?

 

[elektra]

No problem. The basis of AGW has NOTHING to do with what the temperature actually is. It has to do with the emission of GHGs and what happens to the absorbed energy. I hope that helps, because you seem to be accepting the arguments of those who come at it from a political angle and make every attempt to confuse people on the science. If there are any hoaxes involved, it's on the part of the people payed to d

What experiment? When I go to bed in winter I use a blanket to keep me warm even though the blanket is colder than my body. If you think what you said makes more sense than that, you're the one that needs to cite a study. I'm afraid that by taking "obfuscation by science" route, you've just proven yourself to be a parrot willing to repeat whatever fits your bias, because your knowledge of what's really happening is sorely lacking.

you think a colder object makes you warm? do you think co2 is warming you under the blanket? its like a mini global warming environment? you and your blanky

If you know what happens to the energy that CO2 absorbs, let us know. If not, STFU.

co2 don't absorb energy, not in the real world,

 

[elektra]

well, the liberal/democrats are the media, they are cnn, they are the local broadcasts, hence they dictate, we have no voice.

If you're going to lie, do you deserve one?

if you're dumb, do you deserve a voice, really don't matter in the USA, you got a voice.
what you do not have is any experiment that shows that a molecule such as co2 is able to absorb a lesser energy and give off more, nice theory, billions of dollars spent on the theory, you can say no other theory in history has come close to having such a large amount of money put into it.

just aint got an experiment that proves lesser in equals greater out

 

[Politico]

It's the deniers that are lying all the time. Does CO2 have the ability to absorb energy? Has the concentration in the atmosphere been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution? If those two statements are true, who's really lying when they call AGW a hoax?

With all due disrespect, you are a special kind of tard.

This guy thinks people that do not buy into the OBVIOUSglobal warming HOAXshould be put in jail.

Do we or can we appreciate how fucking stupid someone would need to be to believe that?

You kind of have that backwards, IMO. People that understand a topic, discuss it. Those that don't call other people names, because it's all they've got. Get a brain, son, and then get back to us.

People understanding a topic would know that is not a thermometer that would have been used by weather tracking stations in the 1800s.

So were there digital thermometers in the 1800s?
My understanding that mercury height in a tube was the method

Don't be stupid. There were just more accurate ones.