[knews_hound]

I will note, that as a former Metrologist, the idea of any accurate measurement of surface temperatures using the equipment given is simply absurd.

The rule in Metrology is that, if you are trying to get results measured in 1/10 increments (i.e. 98.6 vs 98.7)  your equipment MUST measure in 1/100 (98.60 vs 98.70).

The reasons are many.  Rounding errors and the physical accuracy of the instrument are among the most obvious.

Would it surprise you to learn that the "scientific instrument" that is used to base the entire Global Warming trend is about as accurate as the thermometer you see at the gas station?

And this is what we are basing the decisions on changing the entire economy?

One of these days I am going to take the time to deconstruct the entire issue of the instrumentation used for this "Theory".

Cheers,

knewshound

http://www.knewshound.blogspot.com/

[nuke rocketeer]

What’s even more amusing, is that even using teh cooked data they have, the whole rise in global temperature in the last 40 years is within the error of measurement of the mos taccurate instruments available.

[justa-hairyape]

Good points. But what I never understood is why just use the temperature readings ? Without knowing the humidity or the density of the air you are measuring, the temperature information cannot give you the actual Heat Content of the atmosphere. For example, yesterday it got up to about 90 degrees F in my shop, but I was comfortable because the air was so dry (less dense). So 90 degree air in the humid tropics is typically holding much more energy then 90 degree air in the southwest US. All temperature readings should also have density readings associated with them to make them useful to determining any recent atmospheric energy trends. Now you could use historical humidity readings, but that wont be accurate in areas where the density dramatically changes.