Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ineedutolisten t1_j0hovoh wrote

Comparing measurements made on digital thermometers with those from old mercury ones that were read by myopic monks is a perfect example of not understanding the importance of accuracy and precision.

0

FeynmansMiniHands t1_j0i741e wrote

This is a common but incorrect feeling. Unless you work in a lab with NIST certified equipment, the glass thermometers used by 18th century english scientists are almost certainly both more accurate and more precise than any thermometer you've ever handled.

The CET dataset only specifies temperatures to a 0.1 degree precision, which even the earliest mercury thermometers could achieve.

Science and technology has improved, but we don't need to measure temperature out to the 5th decimal places for climatology.

5

Korwinga t1_j0htujz wrote

Do you understand the difference between accuracy and precision?

4

ballsoutofthebathtub t1_j0i23fg wrote

What suggestion do you have for doing this apart from demanding technology that didn't exist at the time?

1

Throweezy31 t1_j0hstyf wrote

And yet this is the ridiculous approach that underlies mainstream climate science temperature records.

I wish more people understood the point you are making but apparently it’s beyond most peoples ken.

−1

MolybdenumIsMoney t1_j0i3lkk wrote

We don't have reliable records of daily temperature measurements going far back, but we can still derive historic seasonal temperature with tree ring and ice core data reliably.

Accurate daily comparisons over the last several decades can also be made, and there has been substantial change in the last several decades.

2

Throweezy31 t1_j0ieg8x wrote

I believe you are misusing the word reliable in this context

−2