Back in the day, Al Gore declared that the “debate was over” even before we had any debate. There was never a real debate. He simply declared himself to be the expert. He wanted to silence any opposition before they had an opportunity to retort. That mentality still exists. If scientists suggest anything other than the establishment view of global warming, their careers are in danger. No matter what their data says. It’s awful. Poisoned by politics.
So now say pre 1960’s only data from ground level and ice core and (I’m told) core samples of dirt show a temperature of x. And today we have temp data from from ground level, and satalites taking readings at all levels of the atmosphere giving a temp of Y. Isn’t that comparing apples to oranges to determine if we are hotter (on average) today than say 100 years ago?
When one looks at the large data set combined with the fact that we know that atmospheric CO2 traps heat… it isn’t nearly the same thing as pointing to one data point and dismissing the trend.
Using single points of data doesn’t disprove anything.
And I was pointing out that using multiple data points if you are not comparing apples to apples (same number of data points at the same place) doesn’t prove anything either.
If multiple data sets all point to the same thing added to the fact that the physical mechanism for the effect is well known then it is rather silly to argue that something isn’t happening when it clearly is.
But as I say all the time… congrats… we got to live in the brief period of human history where we got to enjoy the wealth that using carbon extracted from the ground brings AND we get to stuff that cost on to people who haven’t been born yet.
For the year 1918, where were the data points taken at ground level to come up with the average world temperature. Because that’s ALL you had. No satalites to take readings of area’s without a population, nor to take readings at different levels of the atmosphere. If you compare that data set to last years readings that include far more data points on the earth, more accurate readings (compared to 1918 equipment), and different levels of the atmosphere (and area’s wthout an actual thermometer on the ground).
So comparing the complete 1918 data set to the COMPLETE data set from 2018 is not a good comparison. If you subtracted everything not available in 1918 and compared them – you would have an accurate comparison to see if we are cooler or warmer than even 100 years ago.
Go back 2,000 years and you would not be able to have any reliable comparison at all.
There are multiple data sets from multiple sources that all show the exact same thing.
Trying to muddy the waters to convince oneself that we shouldn’t have to pay for the environmental costs we are imposing on future generations is cool… I guess.
Say you had a reading of your body temp over a month from 10 years ago that only used a murcury filled thermometer taken orally. Over that one month, you would have an average of your temperature from that specific location, and only as accurate as the thermometer was (possibly in 1/2 or 1/4 degree incruments).
Now say today you go and take your readings over a one month period with a digital thermometer orally, and rectally. You also use the little things available now to also take the reading from a nostil, and also from the ear. You average out all those 4 area’s to the 10th of a degree and compare it to the reading 10 years ago.
is it an accurate comparison of your body temperature 10 years ago compared to today?