Posted on 08/08/2007 9:07:54 PM PDT by chipengineer
There has been some turmoil yesterday on the leaderboard of the U.S. (Temperature) Open and there is a new leader.
A little unexpectedly, 1998 had a late bogey and 1934 had a late birdie. (I thought that they were both in the clubhouse since the turmoil seemed to be in the 2000s.) In any event, the new leader atop the U.S. Open is 1934.
(Excerpt) Read more at climateaudit.org ...
Bunny... pancake on head.
I would not trust the quality of data from 1934 to be compared with that of today’s standards.
Not even of 40 years ago.
Yeah...they just invented mercury in a glass tube last week...
*smirk*
The data quality from 1934 actually is quite good, and a long intense blazing hot summer throughout the country clearly overcame a bitterly cold February in the East amid the most extensive severe drought on record. The year 1934 predated the time when scientists began to “adjust” the temperature record to enhance its accuracy, and the “global warming” talk then lacked the gravity and political importance of its present counterpart. They didn’t have computers in those days to exaggerate errors, and the publishers of the official climate record clearly took great pains to ensure completeness and correctness. I’ll venture to guess that in most of the country, the 1934 data quality exceeds that prevalent today.
Even though he wasn’t born yet, it is still Bush’s fault./s/
Rats! Now I feel like all of life itself just a glitch.
But, in 1934 reporting the weather statistics was not political. Today it is, and the question isn't one of technology but rather of politics. How soon before we find Winston Smith, Squealer and Snowball redoing the data from those hot dustbowl years?
Right now, NASA is updating their calculations, and a lot of U.S. temperature estimates are changing for GISS.
Yes, and a transistor is a transistor.... 1950s through 2007, it’s all the same...
Oh yeah?
Then you obviously didn't see the recent expose on the poor sighting of many Measurement Stations. Some in the exhaust from A/c units, others next to radiating walls or areas of asphalt. In other words, Stations that, very accurately, measured distorted data.
I have a labratory quality mercury thermometer manufactured in 1940 that is accurate within a tenth of a degree when measured against the new digital ones. So don’t discard old data merely because it has aged.
>Yes, and a transistor is a transistor.... 1950s through 2007, it’s all the same...
Actually switching to the electronic MMTS system (with cable length limitations) appears to have caused many temperature measurement sites to have moved closer to buildings (where temperatures are higher).
Well, that's only b/c Al Gore has been real busy lately.
The Propoganda has already been served by the “Error”.
The “Settled Science” lie is now the “Accepted Truth” across the globe.
Yeah, but everything depends on where they stuck it.
A lot of progress has been made since 1947 when we reverse-engineered the transistor from the Roswell crash.
As I understand, the MMTS thermometers have to display readings to 1/10 of a degree, but only to an accuracy of +/- 2 degrees, and then only at 78F.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.