Camaraderie – I appreciate your assumptions. I got my information from Geology by Chernicoff and Whitney, and Meteorology by Ahrens. You can inform their publishers of the errors if you wish.
I have no agenda. It’s a global warming thread, which seems like a place where anyone can discuss the matter. If you’re questioning why I’m on this site in particular, I’d be more than happy to tell you my sailing experience.
Thanks for sharing the thermometer information. Yes, I’m familiar with those – we set up stations throughout Glacier Bay National Park, and yes, there is a margin of error. Keep in mind this is not uncommon among any instrument. Technically it’s fair to say there has never been and will never be research without error.
“For the actual data they had 100 years ago, they used mercury thermometers…”
You’re right, the data they had 100 years ago were from mercury thermometers, but… the data used in climate models are reconstructed. Again. The data in climate models are reconstructed.
In fact, scientists still reconstruct data for climate models as early as 5 years ago. Skeptical? Google “Ignatius G. Rigor" and look through the projects. Granted, thermometer data is still valid data, but research is not solely limited to thermometers readings.
“Are you ignoring it because it's a blog or because it published the following:…”
Poopdeckappy, I’m ignoring it because it’s a blog.
SailingAway21 – Nice reply. I stated that data from the 1880’s (to more recent) was/is reconstructed.
One thing to point out, I never stated that conservative reports were less reliable than liberal, or vice versa. People told me to “follow the money” on my sources, which I did. I found nothing surprising or disturbing. I “followed” the money on the resources from poopdeckpappy, and thought it was odd that a statement from a slanted article would be more valid than the IPCC or any other reports I’ve brought up.
What you make of that is, of course, of your own opinion. People can look at these sources for themselves and decide which they think is more valid. Personally, I’d put more belief into a report from NOAA than from any liberal or conservative study.
“Because many areas of the midwest could really use some rain this spring and it hardly seems right that we're sitting on our hands when we could be doing something about it.”
You might be confusing climate and weather on this one. I said man affects, not controls, climate. Look up the definitions of climate and weather and maybe rephrase what you mean exactly.
“It's going to be difficult to discuss the topic with Melinda because she assures us that temperatures "are not where they should be".”
Isn’t this the global warming thread?
“I'm equally sure that we are all eagerly anticipating Melinda's explanation of where temperatures should be and why they should be there.”
I stated before, “People must look at, idealistically, all of the models to get an idea of the extent of climate change.”
“I assume Sway, you aren't holding your breath waiting for any response from melinda that can't be found in an enviormental activist report, press release, etc..”
I’ve included where my information is coming from in all of my posts. Maybe somebody can tell me which are environmental activist reports, and perhaps whether they’re liberal or conservative?