YNoKyoto

| 5 Comments

The Financial Times reports:

Here, we show how the projections for temperature and sea level rise set out in the fourth Assessment Report in 2007 compare with actual measurements. We can see that global average temperatures have not accelerated at the rate predicted in some scenarios.


5 Comments

The question I have always had is, "How do you measure it?". I don't care whether it is Global Temperature, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or sea level all are virtually impossible to quantify. There are just to many uncontrollable factors to make any accurate measurements especially on an object the size of Earth.

Quite so, but this is a more technical argument. Better to just beat them on the head with WRONG! People will understand this better.

There are real tide gauges with daily records going back over 100 years.

http://www.psmsl.org/products/commentaries/west_coast_north_america.pdf

Last 40 years we have had satellite measures as well.

Fred my point was not about the instruments of measurement but rather the readability of the instruments. If I take an atmospheric sample from the middle of an LA freeway at rush hour the CO2 concentration is much higher than taking a measurement in the middle of the boreal forest. As for the satellite measuring of ocean levels ... Well let us just say that you can not read a slide rule to 10 decimal places.

I think the problem is less an issue of wether or not something can be measured at all -- since some things like CO2 concentration in the atmosphere can be measured at fixed stations -- as what the range of error is with respect to those measurements and wether or not the point and method of measurement are standardized throughout the time period graphed in a trend. In some cases, e.g. "mean global temperature", I would agree that in an open system not in thermodynamic equilibrium the term is virtually meaningless but if someone wants to hang their hat on it, then I suppose I can let it go as long as they are willing to rigorously standardize the reference measurements.
Unfortunately the alarmists aren't even prepared to do that. How one gets a "mean global temperature" from the 1850s when Speake was yet to discover the source of the Nile, or from the 1890s when no one had yet reached the poles and therefore were unable to take temperature measurements from them is quite beyond me, never satisfactorily explained to me by any alarmist and typically dismissed with a "you don't understand the science" verbal wave of the hand. Climate alarmists' graphs are virtually never presented with error bars or rigorous reporting of the precision and accuracy of the instruments used to obtain them.
AGW: an ill-defined hypothesis, having no standardized system of measurement and no falsifiable parameters making no useable predictions.

Leave a comment

Archives

November 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Recent Comments

  • DrD: I think the problem is less an issue of wether read more
  • Joe: Fred my point was not about the instruments of measurement read more
  • Fred: There are real tide gauges with daily records going back read more
  • Robert of Ottawa: Quite so, but this is a more technical argument. Better read more
  • Joe: The question I have always had is, "How do you read more