Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[Heissonear]

Modern climate scientists that promote Global Warming Alarmism routinely list "Earth's Global Temperature" for periods such as monthly and yearly.

On top of this they list "Earth's Global Temperature" value to the second decimal!

No small feat, aye?

Or is this "Global data point" their best current achieveable attainment, that should be given with a single decimal point that includes a "plus or minus" in amount of error?

And lets not get into "splicing paleodendrology proxy data to actual thermometer produced data," like Michael Mann did to get the erroneous "Hockey Stick" graph showing earth's recent past and present temperature profile!!!

How bogus do dubious climate scientists need to be before the unsuspecting mentions something about their dubious ways?

But in this thread we will mention over 70% of the earth is covered with water, how clouds are transient albedo factors daily, and details about how temperature readings locations have major geographic gaps, and temperature measurements above 30N and 30S latitudes are, well, sparse.

But 2014 will have a single Global temperature value to the second decimal!

Need we say who are the ones who presents "erroneous results" and "pseudo-data" - data that looks real but has considerable error.

What if I told you to take temperature measurements of the entire earths for one year and then give me what was the Global temperature for the past month and year? What would you present? How confident would you be in your year 2014 value?

.

 

[hurste1951]

Modern climate scientists that promote Global Warming Alarmism routinely list "Earth's Global Temperature" for periods such as monthly and yearly.

On top of this they list "Earth's Global Temperature" value to the second decimal!

No small feat, aye?

Or is this "Global data point" their best current achieveable attainment, that should be given with a single decimal point that includes a "plus or minus" in amount of error?

And lets not get into "splicing paleodendrology proxy data to actual thermometer produced data," like Michael Mann did to get the erroneous "Hockey Stick" graph showing earth's recent past and present temperature profile!!!

How bogus do dubious climate scientists need to be before the unsuspecting mentions something about their dubious ways?

But in this thread we will mention over 70% of the earth is covered with water, how clouds are transient albedo factors daily, and details about how temperature readings locations have major geographic gaps, and temperature measurements above 30N and 30S latitudes are, well, sparse.

But 2014 will have a single Global temperature value to the second decimal!

Need we say who are the ones who presents "erroneous results" and "pseudo-data" - data that looks real but has considerable error.

What if I told you to take temperature measurements of the entire earths for one year and then give me what was the Global temperature for the past month and year? What would you present? How confident would you be in your year 2014 value?

.

Just to set the record straight since there is a major incorrect point here. Remember climate scientists do NOT PROVIDE A SINGLE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. They deal in
TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES
This is the GRIDDED AVERAGE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CURRENT TEMPERATURE AND THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR THAT REGION OVER AN ESTABLISHED LENGTH OF TIME.

Here's what NOAA says about Tempearture Anomalies:

[FONT='Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The term [/FONT]​

temperature anomaly

[FONT='Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.(SOURCE)​

[/FONT]​

You can also read up on the LINEAR REGRESSION AND UNCERTAINTY of the temperature trends on page 2SM-11 in THIS DOCUMENT here.

 

[juvenissun]

Just to set the record straight since there is a major incorrect point here. Remember climate scientists do NOT PROVIDE A SINGLE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. They deal in
TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES
This is the GRIDDED AVERAGE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CURRENT TEMPERATURE AND THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR THAT REGION OVER AN ESTABLISHED LENGTH OF TIME.

Here's what NOAA says about Tempearture Anomalies:


[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
You can also read up on the LINEAR REGRESSION AND UNCERTAINTY of the temperature trends on page 2SM-11 in THIS DOCUMENT here.

Somebody provided that kind of single global temperature. Is that person a Climate Scientist?

Is that single global temperature USED by any climate scientist?

Yes, and yes.

 

[hurste1951]

Somebody provided that kind of single global temperature. Is that person a Climate Scientist?

Is that single global temperature USED by any climate scientist?

Yes, and yes.

The only thing I can think of that you might be referring to is the impact of greenhouse gases to alter the "average" surface temperature up from the black-body radiation temperature in a world without any greenhouse gases.

That really isn't the point of the AGW science. That is merely to educate the many "skeptics" on here who have no idea what the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation is.

The global climate change debate hinges on temperature anomalies.

One should try to read the actual literature and try to understand the science first.

 

[juvenissun]

The only thing I can think of that you might be referring to is the impact of greenhouse gases to alter the "average" surface temperature up from the black-body radiation temperature in a world without any greenhouse gases.

That really isn't the point of the AGW science. That is merely to educate the many "skeptics" on here who have no idea what the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation is.

The global climate change debate hinges on temperature anomalies.

One should try to read the actual literature and try to understand the science first.

OK. If so, the temperature anomalies of what? January? or America?
We are facing the same problem of getting an average temperature (in order to have the anomaly) through a period of time or over a large area.

And, would the figure of a "global temperature anomaly" make any sense? If so, how do we get that anomaly?

Anomaly or not, we are looking at the same problem identified in the OP.

 

[hurste1951]

OK. If so, the temperature anomalies of what? January? or America?

So you are completely unfamiliar with the literature on this topic?

Here is how NOAA NCDC explains it:

• How is the average global temperature anomaly time-series calculated?
  
  [FONT='Open Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The global time series is produced from the Smith and Reynolds blended land and ocean data set (Smith et al., 2008). This data set consists of monthly average temperature anomalies on a 5° x 5° grid across land and ocean surfaces. These grid boxes are then averaged to provide an average global temperature anomaly. An area-weighted scheme is used to reflect the reality that the boxes are smaller near the poles and larger near the equator. Global-average anomalies are calculated on a monthly and annual time scale. Average temperature anomalies are also available for land and ocean surfaces separately, and the Northern and Southern Hemispheres separately. The global and hemispheric anomalies are provided with respect to the period 1901-2000, the 20th century average.(SOURCE)

• [/FONT]

We are facing the same problem of getting an average temperature (in order to have the anomaly) through a period of time or over a large area.

Or you could actually read how the temperature anomalies are calculated.

Such as this article in 1987 which lays out a lot of the detailed estimates of error and how the measures work (HERE)

And, would the figure of a "global temperature anomaly" make any sense? If so, how do we get that anomaly?

There are numerous sources of this information on the internet with minimal searching.

Anomaly or not, we are looking at the same problem identified in the OP.

The only thing of any real value in the OP is the discussion of significant figures which I am still looking through to better understand.

 

[Heissonear]

So you are completely unfamiliar with the literature on this topic?

Here is how NOAA NCDC explains it:

[/FONT]
[/LIST]


Or you could actually read how the temperature anomalies are calculated.

Such as this article in 1987 which lays out a lot of the detailed estimates of error and how the measures work (HERE)



There are numerous sources of this information on the internet with minimal searching.



The only thing of any real value in the OP is the discussion of significant figures which I am still looking through to better understand.

.


This is halarious. Trying to defend "one Global Earth Temperature Point," like the data point coming up for 2014!

Lay on the whitewash, this effort needs a thick coating.

Explain "Global Temperature" away! Explain it like its not real and been happening in climate science.

Rather than face up to this farce practice.

.

 

[hurste1951]

This is halarious.

I am assuming that you meant "hilarious" (the common English language spelling).

I hope not! I'm only trying to balance your version of science with some additional facts.

So let's talk about those significant figures you brought up in the OP.

It is good to understand how statistics and precision works.

Here is a good primer on the topic: http://web.stanford.edu/class/engr1n/Precision_E1.pdf

(It's from Stanford University, so you know they probably don't know much about how numbers and stuff work).

Let's specifically focus on the section labeled: AVERAGING

One of the reasons that we average replicate measurements is to increase precision. That is averaging is one way to increase the number of significant digits.

(emphasis mine)

Now in the case of the global temperature ANOMALY (note that they use ANOMALY not raw temperature), there are in many areas far more temperature sites than are needed to get an estimate of the gridded average. Even the oceans have coverage with various temperature probes (ships of opportunity, research ships --one of which I actually worked on myself!--, and XBT and other autonomous probes)

Lay on the whitewash, this effort needs a thick coating.

Not if one bothers to actually understand the technical details.

Rather than face up to this farce practice.

Well, to be fair I actually attempt to understand the MATH and actually have some experience working on an oceanographic research cruise. So if you want to call it a "farce" rather than try to understand technical details then go right ahead.

 

[[serious]]

.


This is halarious. Trying to defend "one Global Earth Temperature Point," like the data point coming up for 2014!

Lay on the whitewash, this effort needs a thick coating.

Explain "Global Temperature" away! Explain it like its not real and been happening in climate science.

Rather than face up to this farce practice.

.

Care to provide us a link to someone discussing absolute global temperature rather than temperature anomaly? I've seriously never seen anyone do this. Ever.

 

[Heissonear]

Care to provide us a link to someone discussing absolute global temperature rather than temperature anomaly? I've seriously never seen anyone do this. Ever.

Backwards on the subject? Why, "anomaly whitewash"?

Do you know the distribution of station weather recordings?

Do you know the data collection methodology?

Has there been temperature values for past years, with 2014 upcoming?

Will thete be a 2014 temperature point to the second decimal place and paraded in publications and media?

Was it you that chimed a post that 2014 will be the warmist ever?

Let the whitewash continue rather than face up.

 

[Heissonear]

Why would one assume the earth (this celestial globe) is warming or cooling without evidence?

What good is evidence if it is incomplete and not worldwide (global - head to toe - accumulations of firsthand recorded observations)?

How many weather stations are in the polar regions, South America, etc.?

Have scientists and the media stated this past fall (just before the IPCC meeting in Lima, Peru) that 2014 will be the hottest year ever?

Do you really want to whitewash over the obvious like it does not exist?

.

 

[[serious]]

Backwards on the subject? Why, "anomaly whitewash"?

Do you know the distribution of station weather recordings?

Do you know the data collection methodology?

Has there been temperature values for past years, with 2014 upcoming?

Will thete be a 2014 temperature point to the second decimal place and paraded in publications and media?

Was it you that chimed a post that 2014 will be the warmist ever?

Let the whitewash continue rather than face up.

So wait, your OP was criticizing some unspecified party for speaking in terms of some specific global temperature, now you are also dissatisfied with temperature anomaly? Is there some third option I'm unaware of?

Oh I get it, the data leads you to a conclusion you are uncomfortable with, so you would much rather just not talk about it at all. Am I right?

 

[hurste1951]

Backwards on the subject? Why, "anomaly whitewash"?

Do you know the distribution of station weather recordings?

Yes. And I've even been on a OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH VESSEL on the ocean as well! And I am familiar with "ships of opportunity" that gather temperatures in the ocean. And I'm familiar with XBT and the Argo floats! And I'm familiar with sea surface temperatures from satellite data (NASA) and I'm familiar with the USHCN and I'm familiar with a wide variety of easily accessible temperature data!

Do you know the data collection methodology?

Rather well! I've read some of the original data collection methodologies from the 1980's as well! Have you read Karl et al's 1984 paper? Are YOU familiar with the structure of the USHCN data set?

Will thete be a 2014 temperature point to the second decimal place and paraded in publications and media?

So are going to simply ignore the discussion of how many significant figures are achievable with an average?

Or are you confused by the term significant figure?

I am curious if you are even familiar with why the TEMPERATURE ANOMALY is preferred for climate science? I would ask if you've read Hansen and Lebedeff's paper from 1987 (HERE) on this topic but I"m guessing it would be too technical for you.

You see, TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES are more useful than raw temperatures because they are more applicable over BROAD AREAS. If you were even marginally familiar with the research on this stuff going back decades you'd know this!

We analyze surface air temperature data from available meteorological stations with principal focus on the period 1880-1985. The temperature changes at mid- and high latitude stations separated by less than 1000 km are shown to be highly correlated; at low latitudes the correlation falls off more rapidly with distance for nearby stations. We combine the station data in a way which is designed to provide accurate long-term variations. Error estimates are based in part on studies of how accurately the actual station distributions are able to reproduce temperature change in a global data set produced by a three-dimensional general circulation model with realistic variability. We find that meaningful global temperature change can be obtained for the past century, despite the fact that the meteorological stations are confined mainly to continental and island locations. The results indicate a global warming of about 0.5-0.7°C in the past century, with warming of similar magnitude in both hemispheres; the northern hemisphere result is similar to that found by several other investigators. A strong warming trend between 1965 and 1980 raised the global mean temperature in 1980 and 1981 to the highest level in the period of instrumental records. The warm period in recent years differs qualitatively from the earlier warm period centered around 1940; the earlier warming was focused at high northern latitudes, while the recent warming is more global. We present selected graphs and maps of the temperature change in each of the eight latitude zones. A computer tape of the derived regional and global temperature changes is available from the authors.​

​

Are you able to understand REAL scientific writing or does it have to be pre-digested for you by denialist bloggers, Mr. Stratigrapher Geochemist?

LOL.

 

[Heissonear]

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT] Are you able to understand REAL scientific writing or does it have to be pre-digested for you by denialist bloggers, Mr. Stratigrapher Geochemist?

LOL.

.


Bitterness?

.

 

[Strathos]

Do we really need a dozen climate change threads that all say the same thing?

 

[Heissonear]

I am curious if you are even familiar with why the TEMPERATURE ANOMALY is preferred for climate science? I would ask if you've read ..................................................................

You see, TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES are more useful than raw temperatures because they are more applicable over BROAD AREAS. If you were even marginally familiar with the research on this stuff going back decades you'd know this!
.

.

Quoting James Hansen? Oh brother!!! You are on the CAGW Bandwagon! !!


Merriam-Websters definition of anomaly:

something that is unusual or unexpected: something anomalous

.

So called "Climate Scientists" like Hansen by ploy define "any change" as an anomaly; any deviation of trend as anomalous.

This is where "Climate Science" deviates into pseudo-science - looks like science but is not. It becomes "anomaly-based science" where conjecture is made rather than fact by evidence.

From "anomalies" (any change in trend) no real scientific evidence-based conclusion can be made, only speculations.

They take sparse observations and try to derive or define something "usual"

or naturally unexpected = CO2 induced conjecture

Your promotion of anomaly is Whitewash to coverup the erroneous temperature claims by "climate scientists".

Stay with the observed data.

 

[Mainframes]

Its hardly a big leap when the following occur:

1) Before global warming was even observed Scientists predicted CO2 was a greenhouse gas
2) Atmospheric CO2 begins to increase rapidly
3) Scientists predict potential global warming effects
4) Global temperature anomalies begin to occur

The predictions were made before the event. Also, the anomaly has been broken into all the different forcings (both natural and man-made) as has been demonstrated many times.

 

[Heissonear]

Its hardly a big leap when the following occur:

1) Before global warming was even observed Scientists predicted CO2 was a greenhouse gas
2) Atmospheric CO2 begins to increase rapidly
3) Scientists predict potential global warming effects
4) Global temperature anomalies begin to occur

The predictions were made before the event. Also, the anomaly has been broken into all the different forcings (both natural and man-made) as has been demonstrated many times.

.

Like usual, you forgot "a world of physical-chemical processes and events" dynamically happening continuously.

Take your items 1-4 and integrate them into the real world!

Heat travels to cool/cold, high pressure travels to low pressure, mass heat transfer physics (atmospheric and ocean gyre) through radiation, conduction and convection on grand scale, and fluxes of moisture with condensation/evaporation cycling, all these processes with gradational intensities from the earths surface vertically, latitudinally from equator poles-ward, rotational day/night and orbital seasonal earth orientation, all of which are interdependent and intricately integraded that significantly impact and control mass heat transfer on earths surface.

The real world has "dynamic" processes and there is no such thing as "trapped heat". Rather there are dynamic equilibriums in heat or energy collection, transfer, and entrophy.

If you want to over simplify things that's OK, but recognize it is a mental exercise, and an independent not interdependent and intergrated parameter in the physics of physio-chemical and thermdynamic climate systems.
.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Modern climate scientists that promote Global Warming Alarmism routinely list "Earth's Global Temperature" for periods such as monthly and yearly.

Are you referring to the global mean temperature?

 

[hurste1951]

.

Quoting James Hansen? Oh brother!!! You are on the CAGW Bandwagon! !!

No, it means I'm familiar with the actual LITERATURE. If you have a problem with the MATH or the DATA then take it on.

But I understand...ad hominem is mostly all you've got left.

Merriam-Websters definition of anomaly:

So you really have no idea what the science actually IS in this matter????

Really???

If you were even MARGINALLY familiar with this science you'd know that that is not the definition used in the TEMPERATURE ANOMALY.

You're just embarrassing yourself now.

So called "Climate Scientists" like Hansen by ploy define "any change" as an anomaly; any deviation of trend as anomalous.

WOw. Just wow! LEARN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE YOU POST ANYTHING ELSE! You really are out of your depth here, Heissonear.

It's embarrassing!

From "anomalies" (any change in trend)

^^^^^^THIS IS NOT WHAT A TEMPERATURE ANOMALY IS^^^^^^

Not even CLOSE. READ THE LITERATURE! READ THE LITERATURE! READ THE LITERATURE!

no real scientific evidence-based conclusion can be made, only speculations.

Wouldn't you have to know the science before you can make such a claim????

They take sparse observations and try to derive or define something "usual"

^^^^^AGAIN: NOT WHAT A "TEMPERATURE ANOMALY" IS!^^^^^^^

Your promotion of anomaly is Whitewash to coverup the erroneous temperature claims by "climate scientists".

Wouldn't you have to know the technical definition of "Temperature Anomaly" FIRST????

Here's the Definition (since you have no idea what you are even talking about):

• What is a temperature anomaly?
  
  The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.(SOURCE)

Stay with the observed data.

Learn the science first. Honestly. LEARN THE SCIENCE, Heissonear. If you need help with that many of us have advanced university degrees to help you. I have a PhD in geology so I can help you with topics related to the physical and earth sciences.