Replies

Here are some suggestions:

Use your search engine of choice to look up the “Vostok ice core.” You will note in the analysis, the proxy indicators used for climate measures in this ice core, that interglacial periods occur, roughly, about every 100,000 years with other changes on other periodic bases of about every 26,000 years, etc.

Next use your search engine to look up Milankovitch cycles. These astronomical phenomena that have roughly corresponding time cycles noted to occur in the Vostok ice core.

Next use your search engine to look up the thermometer. Your will note that accurate instruments (and that is a generous assessment) have only existed for a few hundred years. (Some could argue that accurate instruments have existed for less than a century on wide-spread basis.) Barometers, another staple of weather instruments, have a similar time of existence. Anemometers, rain gauges, etc. all follow a similar path as far length of existence is concerned.

Additionally, you will note that nothing approaching comprehensive, systematically catalogued, “global” climate/weather measures existed prior to the “age of aviation.” Furthermore, you will, also, note that, as a generality, only where there were aviation (or occasionally, nautical) requirements were these measures captured.

Next consult any basic statistics book on sampling methodology. You will find that samples that can accurately, mathematically characterize a phenomenon must be randomly distributed throughout the time frame of the phenomenon of interest. Additionally, you will note the minimum number of samples required must increase considerably as the fidelity required to construct a reasonably predictive model of the phenomenon increases.

Aviation, on a global basis, is not yet a century old. Magellan’s voyage of circumnavigation is less than 5 centuries old. Even assuming that comprehensive and accurate global climate measures were captured from that time to this (obviously they weren’t), the question becomes from a sampling methodology perspective, is that enough to be able to characterize a climate cycle of 100,000 years?

Is “real,” long-term, global warming occurring or are random fluctuations within the normal range of variation being observed?

The proof is left to the reader.

Excellent summary.

A couple things I would add...

Look up the measurement uncertainty for thermometers in common use up until recently.

Look up the measurement uncertainty for “modern” electronic thermometers when they are not routinely calibrated (which they almost never are).

Look up the variability in environmental measurement due to such things as proximity to buildings, roads, shadows, sunlight, water sources, etc.

Now take those uncertainty ranges and compare them to the predicted temperature changes. You find that the uncertainties of any of the above dwarf the predictions - meaning the predictions are essentially bunk.

Even if we had 500 years of ultra careful measurements by trained professionals, made under the most exacting circumstances and controlled conditions to mitigate local variability and using the best thermometers of the day (and we don’t have anything close to that), the error inherent in mercury thermometers as were used alone is enough completely decimate AGW theory.

And that’s not even considering that everything previous to a couple of centuries ago is a guess, with a far wider uncertainty range.