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

[healthmyths]

Records go back to 1880.
Climatologists define summer in the Northern Hemisphere as the months of June, July and August.
2014 was a summer sizzler Earth s hottest on record

The below is the type of thermometers used to record temperatures.

So a human reads these temperatures at a discrete differential of 1 degree?
In other words how could people in the 1880s read the above thermometers differentiating 1 degree up or down?


And here is a copy of how the temperatures are recorded...by hand.. and note how there were corrections.
Now consider these handwritten entries are then susceptible to handwriting errors.."is that a '2' or a '3'"?

Consider that there are two opportunities for "MISINTERPRETATION".. reading the actual temperature and then recording and then re-recording... isn't it just a little suspect to make a distinction of "1.28 degree" increase as the records indicate?

Dr Jeff Masters shows why siting and instrumentation matters 8211 Death Valley steals all time temperature record from Libya Watts Up With That

 

[Theowl32]

I would have thought someone discovered that the earth's asshole is located at the corner of Haight and Ashbury, and then someone took a giant ass glass thermometer, filled it with mercury and shoved it in there.

 

[Siete]

Now consider these handwritten entries are then susceptible to handwriting errors.."is that a '2' or a '3'"?

now consider RW's were around and couldn't count to three.

 

[jwoodie]

90% of Glacier Bay's recession occurred before 1900.

Glacier Bay Ice Retreated 50 Miles 8211 Between 1780 And 1892 Real Science

 

[Theowl32]

Now consider these handwritten entries are then susceptible to handwriting errors.."is that a '2' or a '3'"?

now consider RW's were around and couldn't count to three.

Look everyone. An earth warmer who thinks that anyone that does not buy into that lie is stupid.

Can we take this time to laugh disrespectfully at all liberals?

 

[Erand7899]

Now consider these handwritten entries are then susceptible to handwriting errors.."is that a '2' or a '3'"?

now consider RW's were around and couldn't count to three.

We are fully aware that most left wingers can count to three. There was no need to brag about the fact. When you can get past ten without removing your shoes, let us know and we will all applaud.

Of course, we would expect you to first consult your scientific experts to ensure there really are numbers above ten.

 

[Siete]

Now consider these handwritten entries are then susceptible to handwriting errors.."is that a '2' or a '3'"?

now consider RW's were around and couldn't count to three.

We are fully aware that most left wingers can count to three. There was no need to brag about the fact. When you can get past ten without removing your shoes, let us know and we will all applaud.

Of course, we would expect you to first consult your scientific experts to ensure there really are numbers above ten.

and you know this how, a scientist tell you ??? Lmao

 

[CrusaderFrank]

90% of Glacier Bay's recession occurred before 1900.

Glacier Bay Ice Retreated 50 Miles 8211 Between 1780 And 1892 Real Science

er, um, just as predicted by the Retroactive AGWCult Models!!

DENIER!!

 

[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?

 

[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?

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?

 

[healthmyths]

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?

 

[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?

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.

 

[konradv]

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.

 

[Siete]

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 ...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now consider these handwritten entries are then susceptible to handwriting errors.."is that a '2' or a '3'"?

now consider RW's were around and couldn't count to three.

Ha..Your global warming narrative gets shit on every day. So all you have left is to lash out and use the latest buzz term "denier"..
There is no man made climate change.
You lose.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Records go back to 1880.
Climatologists define summer in the Northern Hemisphere as the months of June, July and August.
2014 was a summer sizzler Earth s hottest on record

The below is the type of thermometers used to record temperatures.
View attachment 32329

So a human reads these temperatures at a discrete differential of 1 degree?
In other words how could people in the 1880s read the above thermometers differentiating 1 degree up or down?


And here is a copy of how the temperatures are recorded...by hand.. and note how there were corrections.
Now consider these handwritten entries are then susceptible to handwriting errors.."is that a '2' or a '3'"?

Consider that there are two opportunities for "MISINTERPRETATION".. reading the actual temperature and then recording and then re-recording... isn't it just a little suspect to make a distinction of "1.28 degree" increase as the records indicate?

View attachment 32328

Dr Jeff Masters shows why siting and instrumentation matters 8211 Death Valley steals all time temperature record from Libya Watts Up With That

Here's how OR's grandpappy did science back then. He called people Phrenology Deniers!!!

 

[healthmyths]

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.

 

[konradv]

Ha..Your global warming narrative gets shit on every day. So all you have left is to lash out and use the latest buzz term "denier".

Denier is the latest buzz term? Where have you been? Your knowledge of the history of the debate seems as sadly lacking as your science.

 

[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.

 

[elektra]

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.