Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[hurste1951]

No longer a shame for "climate scientists" to state incorrect scientific statements , like earths "global temperature" for a one year period to the 0.01 decal point (hundredth of a degree F)?

^^^^Did anyone notice how much of an error Heissonear made in this post?

It was interesting because he claimed a temperature DIFFERENCE FROM A MEAN was the "global temperature".

This is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of how little Heissonear understands about the topic.

The quote he noted said, EXPLICITLY: "the global temperature was about 1.12°F (0.62°C) above the long-term average for the 20th century"

THIS IS NOT THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. THIS IS WHAT IS CALLED IN THE SCIENCE THE "TEMPERATURE ANOMALY". It is the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CURRENT TEMPERATURE AND A BASELINE TEMPERATURE.

It is made up of thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of data points that are grid averaged and differentiated from the mean for that area.

Heissonear doesn't understand even this simple concept.

As for the number of decimal places if you would like to learn more about this topic look at THIS PAGE from Stanford University and go down to PAGE 8 where it says "Averaging" to learn a bit more about this.

LEARN THE SCIENCE.

 

[[serious]]

No longer a shame for "climate scientists" to state incorrect scientific statements , like earths "global temperature" for a one year period to the 0.01 decal point (hundredth of a degree F)?

Quote is not sourced and doesn't give an absolute temperature.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What difference does any of this make if nothing meaningful is done about it.

 

[[serious]]

What difference does any of this make if nothing meaningful is done about it.

Well, that's why people are trying to do something about it.

 

[Heissonear]

The Global Temperature Index is a synthetic construction of dubious practical value.

Sternly defending the "Global Temperature Index" as meaningful is scientifically dubious.

It is scientifically erroneous to reduce earth's dynamic climatic events into single temperature points, daily or annually.

Constructs from such promote conjecture-based claims.


NASA GISS Surface Temperature (GISTEMP) Analysis

 

[Loudmouth]

The Global Temperature Index is a synthetic construction of dubious practical value.

So says the person who doesn't even understand what the index is.

Sorry, I think I will stick to the experts that know what they are talking about.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, that's why people are trying to do something about it.

It seems to me that proponents of GW want universal agreement before they act.

 

[[serious]]

It seems to me that proponents of GW want universal agreement before they act.

Kyoto protocol, cap and trade, CAFE standards

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Kyoto protocol, cap and trade, CAFE standards

The U.S. didn't sign on to the Kyoto protocol. Auto makers got around the CAFE standards once with the SUV's.

 

[hurste1951]

It seems to me that proponents of GW want universal agreement before they act.

Actually no. Most of us who are technically savvy and who work in science and understand how it works know that "perfect consensus" is impossible on just about any topic.

The goal is to get action based on the best available evidence. That is why this always becomes a "political" topic because the loudest voices who are backing the minority view of the science demand perfection in the science.

Right now the political landscape is such that those people like Heissonear who know vanishingly little about the real science read their favorite denialist blogs and shout VERY LOUDLY. The public is given a line about the science not being settled when it is pretty much as settled as any science ever gets.

We are in a nation that says a minority opinion on a fact-based discussion is equivalent to all other positions. Even if it requires NOT KNOWING the facts or NOT UNDERSTANDING the facts. We must give them equal time.

Right now AGW is supported by more than 90% of the earth's climate scientists. But yet here we have lots of people living off of the denialist blog output to make them think that they, despite massive lack of knoweldge in the field, have a "valid point" to make.

Ugh.

 

[[serious]]

The Global Temperature Index is a synthetic construction of dubious practical value.

Sternly defending the "Global Temperature Index" as meaningful is scientifically dubious.

It is scientifically erroneous to reduce earth's dynamic climatic events into single temperature points, daily or annually.

Constructs from such promote conjecture-based claims.


NASA GISS Surface Temperature (GISTEMP) Analysis

I'll ask again, how far do you take this?

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?"

 

[Heissonear]

Sparse geographic temperature data, and variables controlling constantly changing temperatures hourly and daily, cannot be utilized to claim grand calculations of the Earth's Global Temperature for any time period, particularly an annual value to chart against previous years errant annual Global Temperature values.

Quasi-regional data collections do not include other controlling factors to earth's constantly changing atmospheric temperature: two plus missing data does not equal a known that can be utilized Globally. If so then it's conjecture-based.

Controlling factors include changes in atmospheric pressure, wind speed verses altitude, humidity verses solar radiation intensity, amount and speed of clouds and evaporation, thermal-pressure-gravity controlled mass convection lifts and currents, strong shifts in each due to fronts interactions with jet streams and atmospheric pressure cells mixing and migrations, ..............................

But one temperature point for Seattle will be fine for most Bandwagon "climate scientists" graphs and affirmative conclusions.

 

[[serious]]

But one temperature point for Seattle will be fine for most Bandwagon "climate scientists" graphs and affirmative conclusions.

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?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Actually no. Most of us who are technically savvy and who work in science and understand how it works know that "perfect consensus" is impossible on just about any topic.

The goal is to get action based on the best available evidence. That is why this always becomes a "political" topic because the loudest voices who are backing the minority view of the science demand perfection in the science.

Right now the political landscape is such that those people like Heissonear who know vanishingly little about the real science read their favorite denialist blogs and shout VERY LOUDLY. The public is given a line about the science not being settled when it is pretty much as settled as any science ever gets.

We are in a nation that says a minority opinion on a fact-based discussion is equivalent to all other positions. Even if it requires NOT KNOWING the facts or NOT UNDERSTANDING the facts. We must give them equal time.

Right now AGW is supported by more than 90% of the earth's climate scientists. But yet here we have lots of people living off of the denialist blog output to make them think that they, despite massive lack of knoweldge in the field, have a "valid point" to make.

Ugh.

I think a more holistic view by all sides might be useful.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think a more holistic view by all sides might be useful.

What makes you think that the view of climate scientists is not holistic?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sparse geographic temperature data, and variables controlling constantly changing temperatures hourly and daily, cannot be utilized to claim grand calculations of the Earth's Global Temperature for any time period, particularly an annual value to chart against previous years errant annual Global Temperature values.

You can use statistics to see if there is a statistically significant increase in temperature. You would be looking for an increase in temperature that is greater than the expected variability.

Can you please show us your statistical evaluation which demonstrates that changes in temperature over the last 150 years is within normal variation?

Controlling factors include changes in atmospheric pressure, wind speed verses altitude, humidity verses solar radiation intensity, amount and speed of clouds and evaporation, thermal-pressure-gravity controlled mass convection lifts and currents, strong shifts in each due to fronts interactions with jet streams and atmospheric pressure cells mixing and migrations, ..............................

Given the number of places that data is taken from, these are controlled for.

 

[Heissonear]

Some need to step back and think about the amount of missing data, and what they cannot know or base projections on.

Two plus "missing data" (of extreme magnitude) does not equal a known that can be utilized for Global data points, like earth's Global Temperature number for 2014.

 

[hurste1951]

I think a more holistic view by all sides might be useful.

For many people like Heissonear and Greatcloud and other "denialists/skeptics" on this forum the first hole that needs filling is general knowledge.

Perhaps THEN they could have a "holistic" view!

 

[hurste1951]

Some need to step back and think about the amount of missing data, and what they cannot know or base projections on.

Either that or YOU could learn how the data is gathered and processed.

Here's a funny thing for people who aren't geochemists (like Heissonear claims to be).

Let's assume that Heissonear works for an OIL COMPANY. His company drills holes in the ground that are often widely spaced by miles. And then they correlate those drill holes. They don't look at the formations inch-by-inch across the great state of Texas. No, they drill discrete holes and look at the data coming out of those holes.

I know because I did this for a coal company many years ago.

This is what a FENCE DIAGRAM looks like in geology:

Those "pipes" you see? Those are the DRILL HOLES. The big areas between them? Those are inferred correlations. It is a COMMON procedure in geology.

Heissonear might have forgotten to tell you that HIS OWN FIELD USES THE SAME SORT OF CONCEPT AS CLIMATE SCIENTISTS MEASURING TEMPERATURE ACROSS A REGION.

Or maybe Heissonear simply "didn't know this".

 

[Loudmouth]

Some need to step back and think about the amount of missing data, and what they cannot know or base projections on.

You can't even accurately protray the data we do have.