The climate change debate continues.

[octave]

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

Even internal Memos of the Oil Companies  that have come to light, recently

yep

 

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

 

[kgwilson]

Changes to the climate have occurred for over 3 billion years. It took this amount of time for the suns energy to enable life forms to create the fossil fuels we use today. We have used at least half of all the known reserves and most of the easily extractable fossil fuel in the last 150 years. So that is about 150 billion years of stored energy gone with all the waste going in to the atmosphere and oceans in only 150 years. Anyone who thinks that has not affected our climate must have rocks in their head..

 

Also climate variations from ice ages to Antarctica being green to a world too hot for land mammals to survive took thousands of years, some times millions of years. The last 40 years has seen the largest average temperature increase in recorded history and that is not very long. Mini ice ages and heat waves  have occurred during human occupation of the planet but that is a measly 1 million years at best. At least 21 human species have existed but we are the only one that has survived for the past 40,000 years, the others wiped out for a number of reasons including the climate.

 

We have to reduce our emissions or risk extinction which if we continue to increase them at the current rate will only be a few hundred years or less. Once we have used all of the fossil fuels available the planet will settle down to do its thing with changes occurring over the next few million years till the sun burns out.

[facthunter]

The Sun will become a Red Giant. Meanwhile Back to the Next 200 years which is of some Immediate concern to us I feel. Nev

[facthunter]

There is no PLANet B. This place is the best for Millions of light years. This Blue Planet and US were made for each other. Why not look after it?  Nev

[onetrack]

Quote

(figures) show a clear, sustained rise in global surface temperatures of roughly 1.8°F (C) since 1880

Octave, I don't see how this statement can be scientifically correct, simply because of the major difference in the accuracy of temperature-measuring instruments, and measuring methods, between 1880 and 2026.

 

Now, even NASA admit the old instruments and methods were inaccurate - but they only go into how good their current measuring systems are! They totally fail to address the possible discrepancies by utilising the old records!

 

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/

 

QUESTION: What were the temperature measuring accuracy differences between 1880 and 2026?

 

Major differences in temperature-measuring instruments between 1880 and 2026 center on the shift from manual, liquid-in-glass (LiG) technology to automated, electronic sensors, and a massive increase in spatial coverage and calibration precision. While 19th-century mercury thermometers were inherently accurate to within roughly 0.1°C–0.2°C, modern systems (2026) offer higher resolution, near-instantaneous logging, and lower uncertainty through digital, satellite, and AI-integrated networks. 

Key Differences in Accuracy and Technology (1880 vs. 2026)
Instrument Type (Manual vs. Digital): In 1880, measurements were primarily taken with mercury-in-glass thermometers housed in early Stevenson screens. In 2026, the standard is electronic, using thermistors, resistance temperature detectors (RTDs), or infrared sensors.
Measurement Frequency and Consistency: 1880s thermometers required manual reading and resetting of maximum/minimum markers, which could introduce human error and bias. By 2026, AI-integrated digital systems provide continuous, automatic, and remote logging, eliminating manual reading errors.
Calibration and Stability: Well-maintained 1880s mercury thermometers were highly accurate, sometimes reported as being accurate to 0.1°C. However, modern Platinum Resistance Thermometers (PRTs) and digital sensors (2026) allow for higher stability and more frequent, standardized calibration, reducing drift.
Data Coverage and Spatial Uncertainty: While individual instruments in 1880 were accurate, the density of weather stations was low, leading to high spatial sampling error. By 2026, thousands of stations, along with satellite data and AI, significantly reduce this uncertainty. 

Key Factors Influencing Historical vs. Modern Data
Environmental Bias (Urban Heat Island): A significant difference is not the thermometer itself, but its surroundings. 1880s stations were often rural. By 2026, many stations are located in developed urban areas, requiring complex adjustments for the "urban heat island" effect.
Methodology Changes: The shift from measuring sea surface temperatures via wooden buckets to engine intake sensors on ships (post-1950s) required significant, complex data adjustments.
"Accuracy Paradox": Some analyses suggest that properly maintained 19th-century thermometers were more accurate in absolute terms than some modern, cheaply made electronic sensors that may have higher, wider margins of error (e.g., ±2°F). However, the modern ability to network and calibrate thousands of sensors yields better global accuracy. 

In summary, 1880s instruments were reliable but sparse and manually operated, while 2026 instruments are automated, dense, and digitally integrated, providing far greater, though constantly adjusted, accuracy for global averages

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The other problem is that most of the land surface has no records until recently. Historical records are biased to the USA and some western European countries. There can be no "global" temperature estimate, even for the land masses and there are virtually none for the air over the oceans which make up 70% of the planet's surface. If reliable records exist they only cover the past 40 years or so since satellite scanning measurements began. Even there, there are scientific papers pointing out the errors in satellite measurements,

[pmccarthy]

[octave]

39 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

I don't have any philosophical objections to nuclear, where it is found to be the most practical solution.     I think, in fact, the solution will not be just one method.  Every generation source has its pros and cons. My scepticism over nuclear in the short term is a matter of time and cost. Sure,  start planning and building nuclear where it will be most appropriate. In the meantime, keep building the lower-cost, quicker solutions until nuclear can be built.  

[Siso]

Yep and no need to rebuild the intermittents as nuclear comes on line.