Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[rambot]

During July in Las Vegas there is always a +30°F temperature difference between the valley and the Charleston mountain range, for the elevation areas above 8500'.

You can't prove that. You have an incomplete data set.

 

[Heissonear]

You can't prove that. You have an incomplete data set.

True. The "always" should be replaced with "commonly occurs"

The example of nearby elevation change that significantly impacts local geographic temperature exposes a major weakness in use of "grid" based collection data. Yes, how there will be major missing data within temperature databases!!

Now why do many CAGW promoters try to state the "missing data" as unimportant?

And why do the CAGW promoters present earth temperature graphs with second decimal place accuracy?

The temperatures in areas unaccounted for (i.e. missing data) produces inaccuracies when using incomplete data collections.

One form of whitewash would be "Ho Humm"!

.

 

[[serious]]

During July in Las Vegas there is always a +30°F temperature difference between the valley and the Charleston mountain range, for the elevation areas above 8500'.

Temperature stations above the 30° latitudes for both hemispheres are lacking to state it gently.

The past and current data collection grids, and temperature calculations therefrom, are useless and products of over promoters of man's abilities.

Incomplete data bases (i.e. containing "missing data" from many parts of the earth), and any anomalies "identified" therefrom are not representive of Earth’s Global Temperature or Earth’s Total Energy Budget Change over time. Is that clear?

"Climate Scientists" would want us content to only accept temperature anomalies from sparse and incomplete data sets. In otherwords, the "missing data" is of no importance; what they present is good enough, even accurate for the whole world.

Who do these people think they are fooling? For man to think he can calculate the Earth's temperature, and summarize such from incomplete data sets, to derive one global temperature value point for the year 2014!!!

Again, who are are such trying to fool with such lofty claims?

.

But what would a suitable data set look like?

How much data is "missing"? As I've asked before, can NYC have one high temp for a day or do we need a different temp for every borough? Every block? At what resolution can we begin to make inferences about year to year changes?

Shouting "Not Enough!!!" without ever specifying what "enough" would look like just looks like denialism.

 

[Loudmouth]

The example of nearby elevation change that significantly impacts local geographic temperature exposes a major weakness in use of "grid" based collection data. Yes, how there will be major missing data within temperature databases!!

Those local geographic features do not change from year to year. Remember, these are increases in temperature from year to year AT THE SAME LOCATIONS. Since geography does not change, the change in temperature can not be cause by changing geography. However, the concentration of a greenhouse gas is changing . . .

The temperatures in areas unaccounted for (i.e. missing data) produces inaccuracies when using incomplete data collections.

At what point are they accounted for? Did we, just by random, happen to place those thermometers in just the areas that are increasing in temperature from year to year? Since you claim the data is missing, you need to show us the error in sampling and the errors in weighting different data sets.

Or do you require a thermometer on every square foot of the planet making 10,000 measurements an hour?

 

[eclipsenow]

Why climate deniers cannot face the truth: and the fact that Heissonear keeps taunting the data with 'fear-mongers' etc shows he's probably prone to this himself!

“We’re reluctant to come to terms with the fact that what we love and enjoy and what gives us a sense of who we are is also now bound up with the most unimaginable devastation,” says Lertzman. “When we don’t process the pain of that, that’s when we get stuck and can’t move forward.” Lertzman refers to this inability to mourn as “environmental melancholia,” and points to South Africa’s postapartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission as an example of how to effectively deal with this collective pain. “I’m not saying there should be one for climate or carbon, but there’s a lot to be said for providing a means for people to talk together about climate change, to make it socially acceptable to talk about it.”

Rosemary Randall, a trained psychotherapist, has organized something close to this. She runs the U.K.-based Carbon Conversations, a program that brings people together to talk in a group setting about ways of halving their personal carbon footprint. Writing in Aeon, an online magazine, Randall suggests that climate change is such a disturbing subject, that “like death, it can raise fears and anxieties that people feel have no place in polite conversation.” Randall acknowledges that while psychology and psychoanalysis aren’t the sole solutions to tackling climate change, “they do offer an important way of thinking about the problem.”

Lertzman says the mainstream climate-change community has been slow to register the value of psychology and social analysis in addressing global warming. “I think there’s a spark of some interest, but also a wariness of what this means, what it might look like,” she notes. Gifford says otherwise, however, explaining that he has never collaborated with other disciplines as much as he does now. “I may be a little biased because I’m invested in working in it, but in my view, climate change, and not mental health, is the biggest psychological problem we face today because it affects 100% of the global population.”

Despite the pain, shame, difficulty and minefield of other psychological barriers that we face in fully addressing climate change, both Lertzman and Gifford are still upbeat about our ability to face up to the challenge. “It’s patronizing to say that climate change is too big or abstract an issue for people to deal with,” says Lertzman. “There can’t be something about the human mind that stops us grappling with these issues given that so many people already are — maybe that’s what we should be focusing on instead.”

Climate-Change Denialism and the Problems of Psychology | TIME.com

 

[RickG]

Why climate deniers cannot face the truth: and the fact that Heissonear keeps taunting the data with 'fear-mongers' etc shows he's probably prone to this himself!

I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know the difference between weather and climate. By his way of reasoning, not even the seasons exist. How can we have summer, winter, fall, and spring with all that incomplete data?

 

[rambot]

The temperatures in areas unaccounted for (i.e. missing data) produces inaccuracies when using incomplete data collections.

You haven't ACTUALLY specified which "areas" are "unaccounted for"; not in terms of percent but in terms of geographical areas. I think there will be a LOT of people in this thread who'd love to see that from you.

 

[Heissonear]

You haven't ACTUALLY specified which "areas" are "unaccounted for"; not in terms of percent but in terms of geographical areas. I think there will be a LOT of people in this thread who'd love to see that from you.

.

You haven’t answered the thread question.

The CAGW Bandwagon group promoting CO2 induced Global Warming have not made clear to others their limitations and inaccuracies when stating and graphing their "Global Earth Temperature" values and charts.

Others have tried to detour the issue by presenting "data sets" by weather agencies in graphed form to show "anomalies" - changes in temperature within these data sets over time - but such numbers ploted to the second decimal are from severely incomplete databases of "earth's global temperature" .

When we talk about Global Earth Temperature for a period of time it means Global Temperature for a period of time. Not calculations from severely incomplete databases.

Some then try to shift weight to the incomplete data sets like the calculated temperatures from them are near equivalent to claim accurate earth temperature change as a whole, accurate enough for the earth's global temperature, even to claim accuracy to within 0.1 °C. Who are they really fooling? It's themselves .

Some think too highly of themselves and what they can do and claim before the masses.

And others cannot make rational observations of nature and measurement methods themselves and fall prey to the claims of others, even from media and scientific groups.

The fundamental evidence of CO2 induced Global Warming is first knowing Global Surface Temperature values, either per day, month, and/or year. But no one has or can give such data.

Once again, temperature statements from incomplete data sets are not Global Surface Temperature data, and particularly within 0.1 °C accuracy , much less 0.01 °C accuracy .

Incomplete data sets do not capture the Earth's Atmospheric Energy and the Atmospheric Energy Change that occurs over time, nor the one parameter to express that Atmospheric Energy, that being earths surface temperature.

.

 

[eclipsenow]

You haven’t answered the thread question.

You don't appear to have engaged substantially with the many fact-filled replies given to you!

The CAGW Bandwagon group promoting CO2 induced Global Warming have not made clear to others their limitations and inaccuracies when stating and graphing their "Global Earth Temperature" values and charts.

You're just blowing raspberries now by repeating your own presuppositions not supported by the peer-reviewed data everyone's been linking to!

Others have tried to detour the issue by presenting "data sets" by weather agencies in graphed form to show "anomalies" - changes in temperature within these data sets over time - but such numbers ploted to the second decimal are from severely incomplete databases of "earth's global temperature" .

Others have tried to 'detour' this by asking you how many temperature stations would satisfy you when measuring New York city's temperature: so how's that going?

When we talk about Global Earth Temperature for a period of time it means Global Temperature for a period of time. Not calculations from severely incomplete databases.

They're complete enough. The human race will be adding more and more sensors and sniffers into every nook and cranny of this planet. Everyone's mobile phone will soon be as powerful as a Star Trek Tri-corder. The question for you is when is enough data enough? Mate, the peer-reviewed agencies take the temperature stations seriously. Why are you somehow above the conclusions of Christians in climate science who are doing peer-reviewed work and valuing these data sets? Who are you really to snub their work? Why is your qualification in geology so superior to their qualifications in actual climate science? (The buffoonery of your presuppositions makes me cringe!)

Some then try to shift weight to the incomplete data sets like the calculated temperatures from them are near equivalent to claim accurate earth temperature change as a whole, accurate enough for the earth's global temperature, even to claim accuracy to within 0.1 °C. Who are they really fooling? It's themselves .

I suppose you have some nearly impossible standard like a temperature station every square metre of the earth before you'll believe climate change? Who are you really fooling? It's yourself!

Some think too highly of themselves and what they can do and claim before the masses.

You feel too highly of yourself and what you can do before the masses of people actually qualified in this subject! Unless you're a climatologist, I don't really care about your 'opinion' but the peer-reviewed science coming out of climate labs (where many climatologists are Christians NOT engaged in some tinfoil hat paranoid conspiracy of yours!)

And others cannot make rational observations of nature and measurement methods themselves and fall prey to the claims of others, even from media and scientific groups.

Yeah, gotta watch those scientific groups! They might be measuring real world data or something! In just 15 years you'll hear people asking what they're going to call Glacier National park now that it doesn't have any glaciers in it!

The fundamental evidence of CO2 induced Global Warming is first knowing Global Surface Temperature values, either per day, month, and/or year. But no one has or can give such data.

WRONG! The fundamental evidence of CO2 induced Global Warming is FIRST OF ALL UNDERSTANDING CO2! I thought that was self-evident! Read up on Joseph Fourier and how he realised that the Earth should be a LOT colder but for greenhouse gases. Read up on Fourier devices, named after him. Read up on the Radiative Forcing Equation which basically counts how much energy is trapped with different CO2 values. Get over your petty statistical games with temperature data sets, and do some reading on real physics in the real world of CO2 and how it traps heat!

Once again, temperature statements from incomplete data sets are not Global Surface Temperature data, and particularly within 0.1 °C accuracy , much less 0.01 °C accuracy .

They are Global Surface Temperature data, but just not 'good enough' for you. Why don't you tell us all what level of 'completeness' would be good enough for you, and justify why? Why not stop flapping your gums at us and try publishing a peer-reviewed article in a climate journal about the incompleteness of temperature data? Maybe then you'll realise that this is not a game and you need to RESPECT peer-review and realise where you are so wrong.

Incomplete data sets do not capture the Earth's Atmospheric Energy and the Atmospheric Energy Change that occurs over time, nor the one parameter to express that Atmospheric Energy, that being earths surface temperature.

Tell me, if you repeat it 3 times and click your Ruby Slippers together does it make it true?

 

[Heissonear]

The below repost has not been addressed, which summarizes the dilemma to "incomplete and inaccurate numbers about earth's global temperature over time".


Nobody has answered the thread question.

The CAGW Bandwagon group promoting CO2 induced Global Warming have not made clear to others their limitations and inaccuracies when stating and graphing their "Global Earth Temperature" values and charts.

Others have tried to detour the issue by presenting "data sets" by weather agencies in graphed form to show "anomalies" - changes in temperature within these data sets over time - but such numbers ploted to the second decimal are from severely incomplete databases of "earth's global temperature" .

When we talk about Global Earth Temperature for a period of time it means Global Temperature for a period of time. Not calculations from severely incomplete databases.

Some then try to shift weight to the incomplete data sets like the calculated temperatures from them are near equivalent to claim accurate earth temperature change as a whole, accurate enough for the earth's global temperature, even to claim accuracy to within 0.1 °C. Who are they really fooling? It's themselves .

Some think too highly of themselves and what they can do and claim before the masses.

And others cannot make rational observations of nature and measurement methods themselves and fall prey to the claims of others, even from media and scientific groups.

The fundamental evidence of CO2 induced Global Warming is first knowing Global Surface Temperature values, either per day, month, and/or year. But no one has or can give such data.

Once again, temperature statements from incomplete data sets are not Global Surface Temperature data, and particularly within 0.1 °C accuracy , much less 0.01 °C accuracy .

Incomplete data sets do not capture the Earth's Atmospheric Energy and the Atmospheric Energy Change that occurs over time, nor the one parameter to express that Atmospheric Energy, that being earths surface temperature.

.

 

[Mainframes]

The below repost has not been addressed, which summarizes the dilemma to "incomplete and inaccurate numbers about earth's global temperature over time".


Nobody has answered the thread question.

The CAGW Bandwagon group promoting CO2 induced Global Warming have not made clear to others their limitations and inaccuracies when stating and graphing their "Global Earth Temperature" values and charts.

Others have tried to detour the issue by presenting "data sets" by weather agencies in graphed form to show "anomalies" - changes in temperature within these data sets over time - but such numbers ploted to the second decimal are from severely incomplete databases of "earth's global temperature" .

When we talk about Global Earth Temperature for a period of time it means Global Temperature for a period of time. Not calculations from severely incomplete databases.

Some then try to shift weight to the incomplete data sets like the calculated temperatures from them are near equivalent to claim accurate earth temperature change as a whole, accurate enough for the earth's global temperature, even to claim accuracy to within 0.1 °C. Who are they really fooling? It's themselves .

Some think too highly of themselves and what they can do and claim before the masses.

And others cannot make rational observations of nature and measurement methods themselves and fall prey to the claims of others, even from media and scientific groups.

The fundamental evidence of CO2 induced Global Warming is first knowing Global Surface Temperature values, either per day, month, and/or year. But no one has or can give such data.

Once again, temperature statements from incomplete data sets are not Global Surface Temperature data, and particularly within 0.1 °C accuracy , much less 0.01 °C accuracy .

Incomplete data sets do not capture the Earth's Atmospheric Energy and the Atmospheric Energy Change that occurs over time, nor the one parameter to express that Atmospheric Energy, that being earths surface temperature.

.

If you measured the temperature over a ten meter length at one meter intervals, would that you consider that to be incomplete data?

 

[[serious]]

The below repost has not been addressed, which summarizes the dilemma to "incomplete and inaccurate numbers about earth's global temperature over time".


Nobody has answered the thread question.

The CAGW Bandwagon group promoting CO2 induced Global Warming have not made clear to others their limitations and inaccuracies when stating and graphing their "Global Earth Temperature" values and charts.

Others have tried to detour the issue by presenting "data sets" by weather agencies in graphed form to show "anomalies" - changes in temperature within these data sets over time - but such numbers ploted to the second decimal are from severely incomplete databases of "earth's global temperature" .

When we talk about Global Earth Temperature for a period of time it means Global Temperature for a period of time. Not calculations from severely incomplete databases.

Some then try to shift weight to the incomplete data sets like the calculated temperatures from them are near equivalent to claim accurate earth temperature change as a whole, accurate enough for the earth's global temperature, even to claim accuracy to within 0.1 °C. Who are they really fooling? It's themselves .

Some think too highly of themselves and what they can do and claim before the masses.

And others cannot make rational observations of nature and measurement methods themselves and fall prey to the claims of others, even from media and scientific groups.

The fundamental evidence of CO2 induced Global Warming is first knowing Global Surface Temperature values, either per day, month, and/or year. But no one has or can give such data.

Once again, temperature statements from incomplete data sets are not Global Surface Temperature data, and particularly within 0.1 °C accuracy , much less 0.01 °C accuracy .

Incomplete data sets do not capture the Earth's Atmospheric Energy and the Atmospheric Energy Change that occurs over time, nor the one parameter to express that Atmospheric Energy, that being earths surface temperature.

.

You must have missed the second post somehow, despite replying to it:

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.

I tried explaining that you kept confusing absolute temperature with anomaly as well:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7858556-8/#post66951543
http://www.christianforums.com/t7858556-12/#post67012700
http://www.christianforums.com/t7858556-8/#post66954830
http://www.christianforums.com/t7858556-11/#post66990131

 

[[serious]]

Oh, and speaking of unanswered questions, we are still waiting on how complete the data set has to be before we can know what temperature it is:

Can we tell the temperature of Topeka, Kansas with one weather station? Would you listen to the news saying, "It's 39 degrees in Topeka" and say, "Well, maybe on the corner of 6th and Lee, but what about 6 blocks away at Union and Ferris?"

But is it good enough for YOU?

Can we say that Seattle had a high of 48.1 yesterday? Where do you draw the line?

But what would a suitable data set look like?

How much data is "missing"? As I've asked before, can NYC have one high temp for a day or do we need a different temp for every borough? Every block? At what resolution can we begin to make inferences about year to year changes?

Shouting "Not Enough!!!" without ever specifying what "enough" would look like just looks like denialism.

How much data is "missing"? As I've asked before, can NYC have one high temp for a day or do we need a different temp for every borough? Every block? At what resolution can we begin to make inferences about year to year changes?

Shouting "Not Enough!!!" without ever specifying what "enough" would look like just looks like denialism.

Ha! that means rocks don't exist!


How many data points do we need? I asked before if you thought one data point could cover a city and you didn't really commit. Would you be fine saying that it was 75 degrees in Oklahoma City today? Can OKC have one temperature, or do we need multiple temperatures for a city that size in your mind?

 

[Heissonear]

Posters still failing to acknowledge the errant inaccuracies in the Earth's Single Global Temperature stated for any given period of time.

It has been a dubious promotion, particularly with the major inaccuracy it contains.

Every location on earth is continuously changing temperature. Temperature over time is never static.

To pick one temperature value for one location is meaningless.

To pick one temperature for any "region", particularly if mountainous, would have error in total energy present, much less expressed as a single temperature point.

But on goes the dubious activity, faced by promoters or not.

 

[eclipsenow]

Nobody has answered the thread question.

Tell me, if you repeat it 3 times and click your Ruby Slippers together does it make it true?

 

[Loudmouth]

Posters still failing to acknowledge the errant inaccuracies in the Earth's Single Global Temperature stated for any given period of time.

You are still failing to accept that the increase in mesured temperature is statistically significant, meaning that the signal of increased temperature is greater than the noise of measurement.

Every location on earth is continuously changing temperature. Temperature over time is never static.

The average temperature over a 30 year time span can tell you if the climate is changing. Or do you think that there was no change in temperature during the ice ages that saw 1 mile thick glaciers where NY City now stands?

 

[[serious]]

Posters still failing to acknowledge the errant inaccuracies in the Earth's Single Global Temperature stated for any given period of time.

It has been a dubious promotion, particularly with the major inaccuracy it contains.

Ahem,

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.

Every location on earth is continuously changing temperature. Temperature over time is never static.

To pick one temperature value for one location is meaningless.

To pick one temperature for any "region", particularly if mountainous, would have error in total energy present, much less expressed as a single temperature point.

But on goes the dubious activity, faced by promoters or not.

Really? think about the implication of such a silly requirement:

Every person on earth is continuously changing age. Age over time is never static.

To pick one age value for one person is meaningless.

To pick one average age for any "population", particularly if diverse, would have error in total experience present, much less expressed as a single age value.

But on goes the dubious activity, faced by promoters or not.​

Now, that might be a very creative response for when a teenager gets carded, but I don't think it would be a terribly effective argument.

 

[Heissonear]

1. Dubious defending of man's ambitious effort to reduce the temperature of the entire earth to a single temperature value for a period of time like the year 2014.

2. Dubious defending (or looking away) of the massive amount of data MISSING to do such.

3. Then to present computations from incomplete databases to the second decimal place for the earth for 2014.

Are the defenders coherent of the situation discussed?

Show all again data graphed to the second decimal place which show 2014 was "the hottest year on record".

Do you understand dubious disinformation propagation?

All for making hyped claims.

.

 

[eclipsenow]

1. Dubious defending of man's ambitious effort to reduce the temperature of the entire earth to a single temperature value for a period of time like the year 2014.

Dubious repetition and clicking of ruby slippers together to make your dreams come true.

2. Dubious defending (or looking away) of the massive amount of data MISSING to do such.

Dubious looking away from all the evidence (retreating ice caps and glaciers and ecosystems) of the massive amount of data PRESENT to convince you.

3. Then to present computations from incomplete databases to the second decimal place for the earth for 2014.

Ignore the tens of thousands of temperature stations and satellite readings to convince yourself there is 'nothing to see here'. Um, there is?

Are the defenders coherent of the situation discussed?

What does this even mean? You're not being coherent about anything.

Show all again data graphed to the second decimal place which show 2014 was "the hottest year on record".

Some media reporting missed the subtleties in the science. Blame the media, not the scientists or databases. They are reporting this to the media as accurately as they can, but we've seen reports showing 2014 to be within the margin of error for the hottest year on record.

Do you understand dubious disinformation propagation?

Hey, dude, you're the one relying on big tobacco scientists that are now defending big coal. Oh the irony!

All for making hyped claims.

No hype here: just science. But you can't handle it.

 

[Heissonear]

Let's see, today Siberia has temperatures ranging down to -45 below °F, the U.S. has the Sub-Tropical and Polar jet streams moving surface low pressure cells latitudinally across the states with extensive polar air mixing with Pacific and Gulf of Mexico drawn northwatds warm moist air, dumping rain, sleet, ice and snow over sections of ten or more states over a 24 to 48 hour period, with trailing low pressure cells following in time, as the Northeast still sees the back side surface air flow of the low pressure cells into the polar air masses.

Ditto weather review for other parts of the world, even Mt. Olympus in Cyprus seeing three feet of snow this week, etc.

But there WILL BE calculate just one single GLOBAL temperature for each day this week, and for each of the days that were weeks before and that will be weeks ahead.

The decimal place of these calculated numbers will be to the one-hundredth of a °C.

Sooner or later people will more critically examine what some "climate scientists" are producing and the conclusions they state.

This data will be placed in pretty graphs in peer-reviewed literature that shows "error". The amount of error will be masked, but never mind. The error in spacial time coverage will be in °C, particular values plotted before the year 2000 that are compared to more recent times, but never mind. To show a 0.73 °C change in the time-series plot is still promoted as meaningfull and used by others.

And some are ignorant enough to defend the conclusions.

What ever happened to independently examining things before accepting them as facts?

When will people start to review the "scientific data" has become propaganda, not reality? Pushed and promoted by select bias groups?

.