Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[Heissonear]

So the UAH temperature graph you previously posted is a joke. Yes, we know, because it is a misrepresentation of data. Furthermore, the UAH temperature is just that, the lower atmosphere, not surface temperature which is the true problem.

As for your comment on one averaged temperature, do you understand what the word "average" means? Do you not understand that it is derived from hundreds of thousands of temperature readings throughout the year from tens of thousands of monitored stations world-wide?

Perhaps you can provide a better annual global average temperature method?

2014 was given a temperature point to the second decimal, like it means any thing. And will be the same for 2015, for comparison, like the comparison means something of value.

Comprehend? Reducing a whole year period of time of a continuously changing spectrum of temperatures around the globe, like such data point has value.

And you state temperature stations, measurements, averaging, anomolies, like such is the issue?

 

[eclipsenow]

The real issue to watch is whether Heissoner actually deals with the counter arguments and peer-reviewed data presented in response, or just moves along to the next objection.

 

[RickG]

The real issue to watch is whether Heissoner actually deals with the counter arguments and peer-reviewed data presented in response, or just moves along to the next objection.

His arguments don't even seem to understand simple math, much less statistical analysis utilized in all branches of academia, whether science or a non-science discipline, much less climatilogy.

 

[[serious]]

The real issue to watch is whether Heissoner actually deals with the counter arguments and peer-reviewed data presented in response, or just moves along to the next objection.

He's got a second objection?

 

[Heissonear]

His arguments don't even seem to understand simple math, much less statistical analysis utilized in all branches of academia, whether science or a non-science discipline, much less climatilogy.

Get back to the topic focus - measuring Earth's global temperature to the second decimal.

You are only showing the major limitations men have in doing so.

Statistics shows the handicap!

Do you play golf straight up or use the handicap "system"?

Comprehend?

 

[eclipsenow]

Oh look, Heissonear didn't reply to the substance of the answers here, but instead opened another thread (which is, at least this time, at least slightly above the intellectual equivalent of blowing a raspberry!) What a surprise!

 

[Heissonear]

Oh look, Heissonear didn't reply to the substance of the answers here, but instead opened another thread (which is, at least this time, at least slightly above the intellectual equivalent of blowing a raspberry!) What a surprise!

Get back to the topic focus - measuring Earth's global temperature to the second decimal.

For practice, tell me to the second decimal what the "average Earth temperature" was today along Earth's equatorial from 10° North and 10° South region.

Uh oh! The spontaneity of the clouds forming and dissipating throughout the 24 hour period along the equatorial region has caused a continuously changing geographic spread of temperature flux. Two tempetature measurements per day is not going to cut it.

Then proceed to do the same for the Antarctic.

You won't be even be close to 1° C for the Antarctic!

But 2014 has an "average global temperature " to the second decimal? And so will 2015.

 

[[serious]]

Once again, no one but you, and that one guy from wapo you found talk about global average temperature. You've been told this dozens of times.

 

[Heissonear]

Once again, no one but you, and that one guy from wapo you found talk about global average temperature. You've been told this dozens of times.

Why repeat "the handicap system" climate scientist have derived as what this thread should be titled?

You fall back to pointing at measurement stations with most taking two data points a day, minimum low and maximum high, at finite locales, as the foundation to the Earths temperature for a given day, and then string them together to get a time period average, like for a select month or year for what the Earth's temperature has been.

Toys and games made up by CO2 Alarmists Climate Scientists, and they want others to join in and play.

They present to the second decimal toy isle results, imagining them as useful when the error they contain makes them meaningless.

For example, tell me what the average temperature for Antarctica for August 1, 2015. What is your accuracy to the real average temperature for the vast Antarctica? You would be in error if you state less than +/- 1.0° C

And do the same for every day of 2015 and give me the average temperature of Antarctica for 2015. Yes, one temperature for all of 2015. You would have added error upon error and the "2015" data is even more meaningless.

But there has been a 2014 temperature given for the entire Earth, and will be again for 2015, and in seriousness presented as meaningful.


"NOAA Reports Warmest 12 Month Period Ever

"The new analysis which eliminates the so called global warming pause shown in the other key global temperature data series was revealed last month by NOAA amid a storm of protests from climate change sceptics and mixed comments from climate scientists. The new analysis has already been dubbed the "pause-buster" by sceptics.

"The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2015 was the highest for June in the 136-year period of record, at 0.88°C above the 20th century average of 15.5°C, surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.12°C, according to NOAA."


Source:

http://www.reportingclimatescience....ts-warmest-12-month-period-ever-recorded.html


CO2 Alarmists Scientists promote their handicap measurement system with second decimal place precision, and make grand claims.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Get back to the topic focus - measuring Earth's global temperature to the second decimal.

You mean the fantasy that the Earth's global temperature is measured to the second decimal, Heissonear?
The reality is that temperatures are measured to 1 or 2 decimal places. Global temperatures are then calculated. First year physics students learn about how to propagate error limits (been there, done that, taught that a long time ago!). Climate scientists do this basic science to get calculated global temperatures to the second decimal place.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You fall back to pointing at measurement stations with most taking two data points a day, minimum low and maximum high, at finite locales, as the foundation to the Earths temperature for a given day, and then string them together to get a time period average, like for a select month or year for what the Earth's temperature has been.

You may have at last got how observational science is done, Heissonear. You set up instruments. You take reading from them. You do calculations from the measurements. It is a lot more complex than that but you have the basics right.
We fallback to valid science that has been tested extensively - even by throwing away the standard methods of analyzing the data and doing all again from scratch as the BEST project essentially did!
Berkley Earth Surface Temperatures

But you follow with an irrelevant rant about CO2 alarmists. Than maybe repeats of ignorance of basic science, e.g. how calculations are done from measurements with error limits. Cover the entire surface of the Earth with weather stations and we will still calculate global temperatures to 2 decimal places and you will still complain!

NOAA Reports Warmest 12 Month Period Ever is a news report about climate science. A June report is bit outdated since NOAA issue the reports monthy.
Global Analysis - August 2015

 

[[serious]]

And do the same for every day of 2015 and give me the average temperature of Antarctica for 2015. Yes, one temperature for all of 2015. You would have added error upon error and the "2015" data is even more meaningless.

I don't know anyone who has ever given an average temp of any continent. Are you confusing temp anomaly with absolute temp again? I know you have a lot of trouble with that one.

 

[Heissonear]

Why keep playing toy isle games with Earth temperature data to derive daily, monthly, and yearly values like they are real and can be leaned on?

Again, using "golf handicap" type methodology to "par" to make grand claims is where you stand and the data you possess.

And don't forget the recent successions of "adjustments" to the monthly and yearly data points. Scientific data massaging. If they were accurate to begin with then why adjust?

 

[rambot]

Why keep playing toy isle games with Earth temperature data to derive daily, monthly, and yearly values like they are real and can be leaned on?

Because you're argument of "Pfft...well of course they can't" isn't exactly water tight.

Again, using "golf handicap" type methodology to "par" to make grand claims is where you stand and the data you possess.

Interesting. Well, I guess there is no point in measuring the temperature change in anything since comparing a trend to any other particular spot along the trend is totally useless (except when it's not).

And don't forget the recent successions of "adjustments" to the monthly and yearly data points. Scientific data massaging. If they were accurate to begin with then why adjust?

I feel very confident this has already been dealt with.

 

[sculleywr]

Why keep playing toy isle games with Earth temperature data to derive daily, monthly, and yearly values like they are real and can be leaned on?

Again, using "golf handicap" type methodology to "par" to make grand claims is where you stand and the data you possess.

And don't forget the recent successions of "adjustments" to the monthly and yearly data points. Scientific data massaging. If they were accurate to begin with then why adjust?

They adjust to take into account other measurements of the same areas using different instruments, including margins of error. They also adjust to remove outliers, which are measurements that would never happen in an area, such as a 75 degree Fahrenheit measurement in Antarctica.

 

[RickG]

Why keep playing toy isle games with Earth temperature data to derive daily, monthly, and yearly values like they are real and can be leaned on?

Again, using "golf handicap" type methodology to "par" to make grand claims is where you stand and the data you possess.

And don't forget the recent successions of "adjustments" to the monthly and yearly data points. Scientific data massaging. If they were accurate to begin with then why adjust?

Do you know about the "Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature" (BEST) project. It was funded by the Koch brothers and performed entirely by GW skeptics, including one of your favorite denial sources, Judith Curry, in 2012. The purpose was to perform their own study and evaluation of Global Surface Temperatures. You know what they found and submitted for publication? They confirmed that global surface temperatures as determined by NASA, NOAA, HadCRU, and others, are correct.

 

[eclipsenow]

Why keep playing toy isle games with Earth temperature data to derive daily, monthly, and yearly values like they are real and can be leaned on?

Why do you keep repeating the same errors time and again? Why don't you listen to these guys who obviously know the subject better than you? It's now a matter of Christian integrity and reputation, mate. It's impacting on your witness.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Why keep playing toy isle games with Earth temperature data to derive daily, monthly, and yearly values like they are real and can be leaned on?

Why keep pointing out ignorance of climate science, Heissonear?
No one expects the idiocy of covering the entire surface of the Earth with thermometers to measure global temperatures. Likewise no one is idiotic enough to use one thermometer to measure global temperatures. Rational people expect to use existing thermometers at weather stations to calculate global temperatures. Rational people use this data to calculate daily, monthly, and yearly values while accounting for the real world where instruments change. This gives global temperature data that is real and can be relied on.
Then there are the satellite temperature readings that confirm that the surface temperature readings are reliable.

 

[RealityCheck01]

And don't forget the recent successions of "adjustments" to the monthly and yearly data points. Scientific data massaging. If they were accurate to begin with then why adjust?

I suspect that this is a delusion, Heissonear.

Raw data is always reanalysed in science when more is understood. That produces no "adjustments to the monthly and yearly data points". That produces new data that is the raw data adjusted.

The raw data is as accurate as the raw data can be. For example take a weather station containing a thermometer. It can be read to an accuracy of say 0.1C. That was true 50 years ago when the weather station was constructed. It is true today.
On the other hand we look at the records for that weather station and see that 20 years ago it was moved from sea level to the top of a hill. Even children may know that will make the thermometer read lower temperatures. Thus we adjust the raw data to account for the change.

There are other changes in how temperatures are taken that analysis of the raw data have to take in account. Sea temperatures were taken from water collected by bucket and changed to water collected in the engine room (engines are hot = warmer temperatures). Automation of weather stations means electronic thermometers that read differently from glass thermometers.

 

[RickG]

Do you know about the "Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature" (BEST) project. It was funded by the Koch brothers and performed entirely by GW skeptics, including one of your favorite denial sources, Judith Curry, in 2012. The purpose was to perform their own study and evaluation of Global Surface Temperatures. You know what they found and submitted for publication? They confirmed that global surface temperatures as determined by NASA, NOAA, HadCRU, and others, are correct.

I guess Heissonear is ignoring this because it is research performed by GW skeptics that contradicts everything he has posted in this thread.
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/