3 ms·

The ones selling the narrative aren't the scientists with petabytes of accurate, digitally recorded data showing a global warming trend over decades highly corr

The ones selling the narrative aren't the scientists with petabytes of accurate, digitally recorded data showing a global warming trend over decades highly correlated to human industrial activity who also agree the temperature in 1913 was recorded inaccurately, but rather those who would point to one record from 1913, or maybe 20 records from history, to show "global warming is a myth".

delecti 5y ago
I think you have the logic backwards there. It seems that comment was arguing that scientists want to falsely suppress the 1913 record, so they can also falsely push climate change science. It's wrong, but it's internally consistent.
chrisco255 5y ago
Scientists (as well as farmers) in 1913 knew perfectly well how to record temperature. Digital measurements only matter in precision far less than 1 degree F. Mercury is very consistent in how it responds to temperature. Not only was it likely recorded accurately, it's extremely unlikely the 134F record was off by 4 degrees or more. It also had 5 days in a row above 129F that year. See: https://www.nps.gov/deva/learn/nature/weather-and-climate.htm https://www.nps.gov/deva/learn/nature/weather-and-climate.ht... California has recorded temps in the 130s as far back as 1859: https://twitter.com/Tony__Heller/status/1413706667925983237/photo/1 https://twitter.com/Tony__Heller/status/1413706667925983237/... June 2021 was on par with the average of the last 30 years, across the globe, according to digital satellite data: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-u... Greenland also had anomalous ice gains in June: http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/ http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/ I am not selling anything. But historically speaking, those who have sought to erase history have but one motive.
- rgbrenner 5y ago
  Not only was it likely recorded accurately, it's extremely unlikely the 134F record was off by 4 degrees or more. It also had 5 days in a row above 129F that year. If you believe the temperature record, then that should include the note in their log: there was a sandstorm when it was recorded. A sandstorm would blow sand up into the air where it can collide with the thermometer. The surface temperature can reach 200f, so material from the ground would increase what the thermometer would read. The other temperatures during that week were 128 - 131. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/10/death-valley-high-temperature-record-of-july-10-1913/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/10/death-valley-high-tem...
  - justshowpost 5y ago
    > sand up into the air where it can collide with the thermometer I doubt it. The design of instruments' enclosure prevents it. Moreover, no one challenged the record until grants and narrative AND just the same enclosure design been in use for more than 100 years w/o any complains. https://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/image-20.png https://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/202... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E55WCUmXIAEq2RT?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E55WCUmXIAEq2RT?format=jpg&name=...
- eesmith 5y ago
  > knew perfectly well how to record temperature It's easy to read a thermometer, yes, and mercury thermometers are pretty accurate. But is that recorded temperature an accurate measurement of the air temperature? At https://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01013002curr.pdf https://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01013002curr.pdf you can see the requirements for an accurate temperature measurement site include: - "Over level terrain (earth or sod) typical of the area around the station, and, at least 100 feet from any extensive concrete or paved surface." - "4 to 6 feet above the surface and shielded by an integral thermoscreen." - "[no obstructions] greater than ten degrees in horizontal width as measured from the instrument and within 200 feet of the instrument [and] no closer than four times the estimated height of any nearby building, tree, fence, or similar obstruction" An improperly measured thermometer may get incorrect readings. Why? As your first link comments "The highest ground temperature recorded was 201° F at Furnace Creek on July 15, 1972. The maximum air temperature for that day was 128° F." A thermometer which is too close to the ground may pick up some of the 201° F heat, even in the shade. As another example, 10 years ago it was widely thought the world temperature record was in El Azizia, at 58°C (136.4°F). An investigation then found (among other things) , quoting https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/94/2/bams-d-12-00093.1.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/94/2/bams-d-... : ] the microclimate of the observation site was not typical of the area in several aspects. As noted by Fántoli (1954, 1958), the temperature observations were made over a concrete-coated plaza of a small military fort on a hill. The plaza coating of tarred concrete could accentuate surface heating beyond the norms for a natural desert environment. After the instrument shelter in El Azizia was relocated in 1927, only two other temperature readings above 50°C (in the ensuing 48 yr of record) were measured at the site. Note that even though the instrument shelter provided shade, the surrounding concrete could unduly affect the measured temperature. Going back to the main topic, were the temperature reading you refer to an accurate measurement of the air temperature? Your Twitter link is merely a link to the climate change denialist site https://realclimatescience.com/2020/09/133-degrees-in-los-angeles-county-in-1859/ https://realclimatescience.com/2020/09/133-degrees-in-los-an... - you should have linked to the latter directly rather than have people chase links. From the copied newspaper articles we can read only "in the shade", "exposed to the wind". That it not enough determine if those thermometer readings were accurate measurements of the air temperature. Hence the qualifier "reliably measured" is correct.

delecti 5y ago

I think you have the logic backwards there. It seems that comment was arguing that scientists want to falsely suppress the 1913 record, so they can also falsely push climate change science. It's wrong, but it's internally consistent.

chrisco255 5y ago

Scientists (as well as farmers) in 1913 knew perfectly well how to record temperature. Digital measurements only matter in precision far less than 1 degree F. Mercury is very consistent in how it responds to temperature. Not only was it likely recorded accurately, it's extremely unlikely the 134F record was off by 4 degrees or more. It also had 5 days in a row above 129F that year. See: https://www.nps.gov/deva/learn/nature/weather-and-climate.htm https://www.nps.gov/deva/learn/nature/weather-and-climate.ht... California has recorded temps in the 130s as far back as 1859: https://twitter.com/Tony__Heller/status/1413706667925983237/photo/1 https://twitter.com/Tony__Heller/status/1413706667925983237/... June 2021 was on par with the average of the last 30 years, across the globe, according to digital satellite data: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-u... Greenland also had anomalous ice gains in June: http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/ http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/ I am not selling anything. But historically speaking, those who have sought to erase history have but one motive.

rgbrenner 5y ago
Not only was it likely recorded accurately, it's extremely unlikely the 134F record was off by 4 degrees or more. It also had 5 days in a row above 129F that year. If you believe the temperature record, then that should include the note in their log: there was a sandstorm when it was recorded. A sandstorm would blow sand up into the air where it can collide with the thermometer. The surface temperature can reach 200f, so material from the ground would increase what the thermometer would read. The other temperatures during that week were 128 - 131. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/10/death-valley-high-temperature-record-of-july-10-1913/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/10/death-valley-high-tem...
- justshowpost 5y ago
  > sand up into the air where it can collide with the thermometer I doubt it. The design of instruments' enclosure prevents it. Moreover, no one challenged the record until grants and narrative AND just the same enclosure design been in use for more than 100 years w/o any complains. https://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/image-20.png https://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/202... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E55WCUmXIAEq2RT?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E55WCUmXIAEq2RT?format=jpg&name=...
eesmith 5y ago
> knew perfectly well how to record temperature It's easy to read a thermometer, yes, and mercury thermometers are pretty accurate. But is that recorded temperature an accurate measurement of the air temperature? At https://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01013002curr.pdf https://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01013002curr.pdf you can see the requirements for an accurate temperature measurement site include: - "Over level terrain (earth or sod) typical of the area around the station, and, at least 100 feet from any extensive concrete or paved surface." - "4 to 6 feet above the surface and shielded by an integral thermoscreen." - "[no obstructions] greater than ten degrees in horizontal width as measured from the instrument and within 200 feet of the instrument [and] no closer than four times the estimated height of any nearby building, tree, fence, or similar obstruction" An improperly measured thermometer may get incorrect readings. Why? As your first link comments "The highest ground temperature recorded was 201° F at Furnace Creek on July 15, 1972. The maximum air temperature for that day was 128° F." A thermometer which is too close to the ground may pick up some of the 201° F heat, even in the shade. As another example, 10 years ago it was widely thought the world temperature record was in El Azizia, at 58°C (136.4°F). An investigation then found (among other things) , quoting https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/94/2/bams-d-12-00093.1.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/94/2/bams-d-... : ] the microclimate of the observation site was not typical of the area in several aspects. As noted by Fántoli (1954, 1958), the temperature observations were made over a concrete-coated plaza of a small military fort on a hill. The plaza coating of tarred concrete could accentuate surface heating beyond the norms for a natural desert environment. After the instrument shelter in El Azizia was relocated in 1927, only two other temperature readings above 50°C (in the ensuing 48 yr of record) were measured at the site. Note that even though the instrument shelter provided shade, the surrounding concrete could unduly affect the measured temperature. Going back to the main topic, were the temperature reading you refer to an accurate measurement of the air temperature? Your Twitter link is merely a link to the climate change denialist site https://realclimatescience.com/2020/09/133-degrees-in-los-angeles-county-in-1859/ https://realclimatescience.com/2020/09/133-degrees-in-los-an... - you should have linked to the latter directly rather than have people chase links. From the copied newspaper articles we can read only "in the shade", "exposed to the wind". That it not enough determine if those thermometer readings were accurate measurements of the air temperature. Hence the qualifier "reliably measured" is correct.