Other 'evidence used for Global Warming proof are ship's logs . They say it proves the climate is getting hotter and ships logs go back for HUNDREDS of years ! Wow! Dont you love science, it being so full of absolutes and clever people telling us what to do like that ?
The first thermometer was invented by Robert Fludd in 1638 . In 1724, Gabriel Fahrenheit invented the first mercury thermometer . This means accurate methods did not exist BEFORE the thermometer became wide spread .
There are tree growth rings, coral growth and crop records but these all individually amount to very inaccurate data . Collectively, they have been touted as proof of temperature . This totally lacks any scientific merit . Coral grows in warm waters, old tree forests grow in cold climes and crop records come from temperate climes . There is no overlap so they remain as accurate as they are individually which is not very . They remain estimates . An estimate is a guess .
So we are back to ships logs, which are currently being recorded in a database . Yes, thats right, no one has recorded the data and certainly could not make the claim as has been done that they prove GW . Incidentally, this recording is being done by volunteers who are firm believers of GW . Yep, the GW Thuggees are being trusted not to be emotional and fix the books, seeing as how they have never shredded data or lied, it should work out OK . Or not .
So what do we have from the past ?
Nothing, nada, zilch, zero, naught, just a guess...
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:Other 'evidence used for Global Warming proof are ship's logs . They say it proves the climate is getting hotter and ships logs go back for HUNDREDS of years ! Wow! Dont you love science, it being so full of absolutes and clever people telling us what to do like that ?
The first thermometer was invented by Robert Fludd in 1638 . In 1724, Gabriel Fahrenheit invented the first mercury thermometer . This means accurate methods did not exist BEFORE the thermometer became wide spread .
It's always interesting when and if older, old and antique methods of measurement are compared to the modern ones.
Of course, even people in the antique world knew how to measure temperature: the thermoscope was already used in the Hellenic period, and is was written about even earlier, by Empedocles of Agrigentum in his 460 B.C. book "On Nature".
Otto von Guericke put his thermometer (actually a developed thermoscope) on the wall of his house in 1660. (Similar to earlier models by Galilei [1597] and Drebbel [1603].)
Quote:This thermometer was over twenty feet in length and this plate shows how it would have been fixed to a wall of a house. The instrument on the left consists of a large copper sphere to which is attached one arm of a long U-tube containing alcohol. The other arm, on the right, is open to the air, and within it hangs a float counterbalanced by a figure of an angel which serves as an indicator on a scale of seven degrees, from 'great heat' to 'great cold'.
Source:
Science and Society
I have no idea when the formula for recahbration (∆ϑ) of liqid thermoters was "invented", but perhaps they even knew it centuries ago.
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:In 1724, Gabriel Fahrenheit invented the first mercury thermometer .
Daniel G. Fahrenheit was already in 1720 the largest producer of thermometers in Europe. At first he used ethanol, from 1714 onwards mercury.Guillaume Amontons used mercury in thermoters earlier [source: David Lindley: Degrees Kelvin: A Tale of Genius, Invention, and Tragedy. National Academies Press, 2004, page 99] but after visiting Ole Rømer (who had invented a mercury thermometer with two fix-points aka Rømer scale) Fahrenheit created his one with the three-point-method in 1714.
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:So what do we have from the past ?
Nothing, nada, zilch, zero, naught, just a guess...
We do have quite a lot. Perhaps not about "global warming" but about "Climate Change".
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:We do have quite a lot. Perhaps not about "global warming" but about "Climate Change".
Show me something that can be used to prove the earth is now hotter . Then we can go on to if it is man made .
@Walter Hinteler,
I should have said he wrote a paper on the Farenheit scale that he invented and had started to use on his mercury thermometers . (I do too much from memory in the middle of the night)
@Walter Hinteler,
If one thinks logically, Hero of Alexandria had to have some form of thermometer. Wonder if he kept records?
Rap
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
Quote:We do have quite a lot. Perhaps not about "global warming" but about "Climate Change".
Show me something that can be used to prove the earth is now hotter . Then we can go on to if it is man made .
Did your internet stop working? Or don't you how to use google resp. a scientific search engine or a library?
I'm really not your servant nor do/did I follow orders from a cyclic-collective actuator.
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:I should have said he wrote a paper on the Farenheit scale that he invented and had started to use on his mercury thermometers . (I do too much from memory in the middle of the night)
Nevertheless, you were only
wrong with the date and the history of thermometers.
@Walter Hinteler,
I dont need or even want a servant . You made the claim "We do have quite a lot ...about Climate Change" so I asked to be shown what it is you are talking about because I am unaware of any measurements taken in our past that would be accurate enough to be useful today .
I am aware of very broad indicators of temperature, such as the Medieval Warm period, and the Little Ice Age, but these are unsuitable to prove Climate Change today .
This todo about climate change is really strange....we have completely changed the planet by being on it, changing the climate is just one more thing. It is not like we are going to leave here without leaving a trace, and we control the place, it needs to first and foremost support us. What we need is some predictability, and some planning to deal with conditions as they will be in the reasonably short term future.
First the scientists need to figure out with a good degree of certainty what will happen if we continue as we are, then we can talk. These people who want to change how humans behave without knowing any or hardly any facts, especially those who talk nonchalantly about degrading the human experience in favor of their imagination as to what the planet wants are morons. I have no idea why so many people are listening to them.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
What we need is some predictability, and some planning to deal with conditions as they will be in the reasonably short term future.
I couldn't agree more. Climate change is a fact of nature, whether anthropogenic or not. How do we prepare for it, considering that with the present population levels, walking away from fossil fuels is not a current option.
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:Nevertheless, you were only
wrong with the date and the history of thermometers.
But I have you hovering to correct me and you seem to enjoy it so much....
@FBM,
Thank you . This is exactly the sort of thing that makes Global Warming Thuggees get all excited and it is exactly the sort of thing that is dead wrong . How does that graph show man made global warming ?
Computer modeling...just take it out of the box and turn it on and the clever computer (another new god) tells you everything . No human intervention in the form of telling the computer what to tell us....magic !!
Where did they get accurate measurements from for the period of 1900 to 2000 ?
@roger,
Quote:I couldn't agree more. Climate change is a fact of nature, whether anthropogenic or not. How do we prepare for it, considering that with the present population levels, walking away from fossil fuels is not a current option.
I noted with interest a theory that if we stopped adding greenhouse gasses tomorrow that the planets temps would keep going up for another 50 years. If that is true then it seems to me that trying to cut greenhouse gasses production by a fraction and doing nothing to control population has about .0004838% chance of doing anything positive at all. We dont have the ability to do programs that have that kind of delayed gratification first off (because the same theory has it that good works will take 50 years to register in temps) , and nothing works if we dont control the population levels.
Again, we need to know a whole lot more about return on investment before we sink a lot of money or degraded human experience into this.
@FBM,
Thank you. At least that graph makes some attempt to relate the natural warming to human induced warming. I would be even more interested to see a similar graph over a much longer time period. A 100 year period is much too short to get a compelling result.
Graphs are like computer modeling, the data has to be derived in the first place . The claim that we have information going back hundreds of years doesnt stack up . Even if we accept log books as incomplete yet somehow still accurate we only have data over ocean currents and in prevailing winds, the routes followed by sailing ships .
With the advent of steam there will be more variety in locations, but if you are not a heavy trader than there is no data for your part of the world unless you have a local meteorological station . These are in city areas until the advent of aviation and weather studies which was around 1900 .
The weather balloon gives us more detail over land and it started to be used around the 1900's .
None of this takes into account what would be a reasonable length of time to measure the climate over, we are simply making assumptions and guesses based on what we have...
It should work the other way around . We should determine what is a reasonable length of time to study climate change and previously this has been believed by geologists to be about 100,000 years . This is to eliminate variation due to single events like volcanoes and meteor impact .
So we have 1,000 of the length of data required (if that data is even accurate) and we find the greatest warming we have is 0.5 degree C . This is the same amount the northern hemisphere was cooled by Pinatubo . It also impacted the southern ozone layer, something previously blamed on warming . Is it sensible to hand over the economy to the greenies based on the above ? I say no .
