51% of GOP now accept anthropogenic global warming

[mamooth]

Trying to determine global temperatures pre-1900s is a scientific wild ass guess (SWAG) at best. Were the thermometers controlled by a reliable calibration system? Do indirect methods of estimating historical temperatures allow for massaging the data? How do you "average" all this data together to come up with an average temperatures for the world for a specific historical year! You do a whole lot of SWAGing, that's what you do. Can science come up with reasonable historical temperatures? yes, but the more variables that go into the SWAG the larger the range of possible error.

This is known as the "I can't understand it, so it must be a conspiracy" fallacy. There's a more formal name for it somewhere, but you get the idea. Dumb people simply can't fathom that other people can be smarter than they are, so they instead declare there must be a conspiracy happening.

 

[RollingThunder]

My climate model predicts global warming concerns as being directly proportional to the amount of available public funding.

Yeah, but that's only because you're a reality-denying, anti-science, very clueless, extremely ignorant, brainwashed retard. As you have repeatedly demonstrated with your braindead posts.

 

[Iceweasel]

My climate model predicts global warming concerns as being directly proportional to the amount of available public funding.

Yeah, but that's only because you're a reality-denying, anti-science, very clueless, extremely ignorant, brainwashed retard. As you have repeatedly demonstrated with your braindead posts.

Braindead people don't ask questions that can't be answered. This will be about the sixth time I asked for evidence of accuracy of temperature readings from the 1880s. Where is it? I realize it makes you soil your diapers and it amuses me to no end.

 

[BobPlumb]

My climate model predicts global warming concerns as being directly proportional to the amount of available public funding.

Yeah, but that's only because you're a reality-denying, anti-science, very clueless, extremely ignorant, brainwashed retard. As you have repeatedly demonstrated with your braindead posts.

Braindead people don't ask questions that can't be answered. This will be about the sixth time I asked for evidence of accuracy of temperature readings from the 1880s. Where is it? I realize it makes you soil your diapers and it amuses me to no end.

You would think someone would at least supply calibration documentation on the thermometers used for the temperature readings. Were there any R and R studies performed?

 

[RollingThunder]

My climate model predicts global warming concerns as being directly proportional to the amount of available public funding.

Yeah, but that's only because you're a reality-denying, anti-science, very clueless, extremely ignorant, brainwashed retard. As you have repeatedly demonstrated with your braindead posts.

Braindead people don't ask questions that can't be answered.

Actually that's exactly what braindead people like yourself do. You ask questions about scientific issues that you can't comprehend, but then you reject all of the answers you're given because you are too stupid to comprehend them too. People in 1880 weren't as clueless and primitive as you seem to imagine.

The Instrumental Record of Past Global Temperatures
NOAA
Thermometer-Based Temperature Trends (Global and Hemispheric)

The earliest records of temperature measured by thermometers are from western Europe beginning in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. The network of temperature collection stations increased over time and by the early 20th century, records were being collected in almost all regions, except for polar regions where collections began in the 1940s and 1950s. A set of temperature records from over 7,000 stations around the world has been compiled by the NOAA National Climate Data Center to create the Global Historical Climatology Network - GHCN (GHCN Version 2 data set; Peterson and Vose 1997). About 1,000 of these records extend back into the 19th century.

Two widely recognized research programs have used the available instrumental data to reconstruct global surface air temperature trends from the late 1800's through today. Both use the same land-based thermometer measurement records from the GHCN, but the records contain some differences. These differences are due to different approaches to spatial averaging, the use and treatment of sea surface temperature data (from ship observations), and the handling of the influence of changes in land-cover (i.e., increases in urbanization). However, both show the same basic trends over the last 100 years. The units shown are departures from the 1960 - 1990 period.

 

[Iceweasel]

Yeah, but that's only because you're a reality-denying, anti-science, very clueless, extremely ignorant, brainwashed retard. As you have repeatedly demonstrated with your braindead posts.

Braindead people don't ask questions that can't be answered. This will be about the sixth time I asked for evidence of accuracy of temperature readings from the 1880s. Where is it? I realize it makes you soil your diapers and it amuses me to no end.

You would think someone would at least supply calibration documentation on the thermometers used for the temperature readings. Were there any R and R studies performed?

I think the ship's captains dunked the general store mercury thermometer in boiling water to make sure it was dead on accurate.

 

[RollingThunder]

I think the ship's captains dunked the general store mercury thermometer in boiling water to make sure it was dead on accurate.

I think you have your head up your ass, you silly reality denier.

 

[BobPlumb]

Braindead people don't ask questions that can't be answered. This will be about the sixth time I asked for evidence of accuracy of temperature readings from the 1880s. Where is it? I realize it makes you soil your diapers and it amuses me to no end.

You would think someone would at least supply calibration documentation on the thermometers used for the temperature readings. Were there any R and R studies performed?

I think the ship's captains dunked the general store mercury thermometer in boiling water to make sure it was dead on accurate.

Yeah, but did he have any ice water (without salt) to check the zero C end of the scale.

 

[Iceweasel]

You would think someone would at least supply calibration documentation on the thermometers used for the temperature readings. Were there any R and R studies performed?

I think the ship's captains dunked the general store mercury thermometer in boiling water to make sure it was dead on accurate.

Yeah, but did he have any ice water (without salt) to check the zero C end of the scale.

Of course. If any sailor had been caught depleting the ice cube supply from the freezer there would have been hell to pay.

 

[Crick]

This will be about the sixth time I asked for evidence of accuracy of temperature readings from the 1880s. Where is it? I realize it makes you soil your diapers and it amuses me to no end.

In many cases there is calibration data for some thermometers. There is also the reasonable assumption that a good thermometer's performance over time varies little and thus that trends are accurately reflected. There is also the point that it is unlikely that a number of different thermometers in a restricted area would all put on a bias in a similar direction, of a similar magnitude and with a similar rate over time.

It is not impossible to find and/or determine and/or develop good calibration data for older instruments.

 

[RollingThunder]

As usual, the denier cult nutjobs try to pointlessly quibble about scientific details they can't understand and that are irrelevant to the vast body of scientific data that undeniably confirms that the Earth is rapidly warming, the ice caps are melting and the sea levels are rising.

Because they know nothing about science, they don't understand that the temperature readings taken from precise mercury thermometers in use by the U.S. Weather Bureau in the late 1800s were at least as accurate and even possibly more accurate than readings provided by today's electronic thermometers. Once properly calibrated, a mercury-in-glass thermometer requires no additional adjustment to its readings, so long as the glass bulb that contains the mercury reservoir and its attached expansion tube are undisturbed. Temperature measurements in the late 1800s were accurate to one- or two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit.

 

[Iceweasel]

As usual, the denier cult nutjobs try to pointlessly quibble about scientific details they can't understand and that are irrelevant to the vast body of scientific data that undeniably confirms that the Earth is rapidly warming, the ice caps are melting and the sea levels are rising.

Because they know nothing about science, they don't understand that the temperature readings taken from precise mercury thermometers in use by the U.S. Weather Bureau in the late 1800s were at least as accurate and even possibly more accurate than readings provided by today's electronic thermometers. Once properly calibrated, a mercury-in-glass thermometer requires no additional adjustment to its readings, so long as the glass bulb that contains the mercury reservoir and its attached expansion tube are undisturbed. Temperature measurements in the late 1800s were accurate to one- or two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit.

That's hilarious. For a while I thought you were serious.

Mercury Thermometers Are Going Extinct. What Will Replace Them?
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced last week that it would stop calibrating mercury thermometers starting March 1 a move that brings the U.S. one step closer to phasing out these temperature-measuring devices for good.

The alternative to the mercury thermometer is the digital thermometer, which measures temperature by monitoring changes in electrical properties voltage and resistance of metals inside the device. (Mercury, on the other hand, works by expanding and contracting with increasing and decreasing temperature. With nowhere else to go, this liquid metal zooms up and down a tube inside of the thermometer stick.)

It turns out that this change is for the better for more than environmental reasons: Mercury isn't even the most accurate way to measure temperature. While mercury thermometers can measure temperature within one degree Celsius, digital thermometers can be as accurate as 0.001 degrees C a difference of four orders of magnitude in accuracy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So the assertion that a 1.5 temperature fluctuation with .5 degree C increase over a global average is based on instruments with a potential 1 degree error rate by a bunch of people that weren't looking or thinking about global climate change so weren't even trying to collect the data or document it?

It's sometimes difficult to make facts fit into your ideological beliefs. If so, the facts aren't the culprit.

 

[Crick]

Your quote has absolutely NOTHING to do with your contention.

Try again.

 

[Iceweasel]

Your quote has absolutely NOTHING to do with your contention.

Try again.

How do I get it up your rear far enough for you to see it? Try again.

 

[Dot Com]

GOP warms to climate change as voters embrace global warming believers | WashingtonExaminer.com

GOP WARMS TO CLIMATE CHANGE AS VOTERS EMBRACE GLOBAL WARMING BELIEVERS


BY PAUL BEDARD | MAY 30, 2014 | 3:25 PM

Breaking from party orthodoxy, a majority of Republican voters now accept climate change, sparking a drive inside the GOP to find a middle ground to help candidates finesse the issue without sounding out of touch or in the tank for President Obama and Al Gore.

See link for remainder of article.

The majority view - as do majority views with overwhelming supporting evidence - grows. You folks will eventually be left standing on the uttermost fringes as your former compatriots creep towards the sensible center.

well yeah. Its settled science.