Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[Heissonear]

Care to clarify why a "golf handicap system" is used by climate scientists for the following:

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.

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

Do you understand second decimal place values is what the AGW hypothesis in 2015 is supported on by observation?

 

[sculleywr]

Care to clarify why a "golf handicap system" is used by climate scientists for the following:

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.

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

Do you understand second decimal place values is what the AGW hypothesis in 2015 is supported on by observation?

To put it bluntly, using your own words: Like your speculation has value or relevance to the questions leveled at you. Quit dodging the question and actually answer it, because your latest post is nothing but illogical and poorly strung together propaganda from the anti-science league.

 

[RickG]

Care to clarify why a "golf handicap system" is used by climate scientists for the following:

I gather you don't play golf either. In golf, if you were to calculate you handicap based on your last 20 rounds, you would take the best 10 rounds of those twenty, which would roughly be the average of the amount over par of those 10 best rounds. The reason I said roughly is that you also have to account for course rating, slope and a fixed constant (113) in the equation.

Conversely, GAT is calculated from numerous weather stations daily within a grid of which there are 8,000 grids (NASA/GISS) encompassing the entire globe. Thus for an single GAT, there are actually millions upon millions of individual temperatures that are averaged to get a single GAT. Are some temperatures discarded? Yes, when they can undoubtedly be shown to be outline anomalies. This is done with all scientific data in all scientific fields, not just climatology, because discarding known erroneous data only makes the result more statistically accurate.

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.

That's called rounding off so graphs can be utilized in a meaningful mathematical display. To use more decimal places would skew the graph. If you wish to contact NASA or any other organization that calculates annual global temperatures, I'm sure they would be glad to provide as many decimal places as you like. In fact, you can go on NASA and NOAA sites and get all the raw data. It's there for the taking (FREE).

[quote]Do you understand second decimal place values is what the AGW hypothesis in 2015 is supported on by observation?[/QUOTE]

Ahhhhhh........., that would be a yes; since I had to study statistics and statistical models in graduate school in route to my degree in Earth Science, concentrating in Paleoclimatology.

 

[RickG]

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!

That's why anomalies are used, not actual temperatures. Do I need to explain to you what a temperature anomaly is with respect to climatology?

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

I guess I do need to explain it to you. I like to use NASA because it is the most comprehensive of all the organizations determining GAT's. NASA uses a baseline, which is an average of actual temperatures for 30 years, from 1951 to 1980. Anomalies are the distance (amount) above or below that average. Thus, the data is easier to work with statistically as well as being more meaningful on a graph.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Care to clarify why a "golf handicap system" is used by climate scientists for the following:

No because a "golf handicap system" being used by climate scientists is a fantasy, Heissonear, not the science that even high school science students learn.

 

[[serious]]

Thatemperature anomaly is with respect to climatology?

I've tried explaining it to him a bunch of times. I'm hoping he will have better luck understanding it with yours

 

[RickG]

I've tried explaining it to him a bunch of times. I'm hoping he will have better luck understanding it with yours

It is hard to figure out whether he doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand how GAT's are derived. It is not at all as he asserts, averaging extreme temperatures from the poles to tropics.

 

[[serious]]

It is hard to figure out whether he doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand how GAT's are derived. It is not at all as he asserts, averaging extreme temperatures from the poles to tropics.

I'm not even sure he reads the responses. It just cycles around to "two decimal places! One global temperature! Natural forces! "

 

[FredVB]

Care to clarify why a "golf handicap system" is used by climate scientists for the following:
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.
Reducing a whole year period of time of a continuously changing spectrum of temperatures around the globe, like such data point has value.
Do you understand second decimal place values is what the AGW hypothesis in 2015 is supported on by observation?

It is not like I perceive that information about what is really happening being shared will really be considered by climate deniers, or "skeptics", but it is now widely recognized that there is more in this time of 2016 to be concerned with, regarding climate change
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/07/25/entire-usa-heat-wave-warm-forecast/87528944/
http://brewminate.com/scorching-global-temps-astound-climate-scientists/

Everything of the change in temperatures has been forecast decades ago, and I remember hearing about it, with concern then. The difference there is now from what was said then is the greater general concern from those studying these things and understanding, that the changes with temperatures of the world with global warming are happening faster than what was figured out for it before. And still there needs to be great changes in living and how this world is used, widely, and so many still are not making changes for it, or even talking for doing so, that will diminish our role in the warming, let alone stop it.

 

[Radrook]

Actually, we have nothing to worry about. Everything that is occurring to our global climate, from the melting of icecaps and mountain glaciers to the slow evaporation of methane from the Russian tundra is, and will definitely remain, under intense scientific OBSERVATION.

See?

Increasing drought under global warming in observations and model

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/full/nclimate1633.html

We got all bases covered:

Arctic Zone Meltdown being Observed
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/detect/ice-npole.shtml

No wayyy Hosay we are gonna be caught by surprise!

Global Warming
Direct Observations show CO2 Heating effect up in 11 years.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/global-warming-direct-observations-show-co2-heating-effect-11-years-1489554

So not to worry!

 

[Radrook]

.


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.

.

What irks me is that we humans glibly and somewhat proudly admit to possess the capacity of gradually terraforming Mars via emissions and yet we are steadily increasing Earth's temperature via greenhouse gasses and there seems to be no real concern.

But we do keep everything under observation-as if observation alone will stop the effects of our irresponsible behavior.

Weird!

Unmistakable’ Evidence Shows World Getting Warmer, NOAA Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-07-28/earth-shown-to-be-warming-by-unmistakable-scientific-evidence-noaa-says

Global Warming Fast Facts
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

 

[FredVB]

It is not like I perceive that information about what is really happening being shared will really be considered by climate deniers, or "skeptics", but it is now widely recognized that there is more in this time of 2016 to be concerned with, regarding climate change
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/07/25/entire-usa-heat-wave-warm-forecast/87528944/
http://brewminate.com/scorching-global-temps-astound-climate-scientists/
Everything of the change in temperatures has been forecast decades ago, and I remember hearing about it, with concern then. The difference there is now from what was said then is the greater general concern from those studying these things and understanding, that the changes with temperatures of the world with global warming are happening faster than what was figured out for it before. And still there needs to be great changes in living and how this world is used, widely, and so many still are not making changes for it, or even talking for doing so, that will diminish our role in the warming, let alone stop it.

Actually, we have nothing to worry about. Everything that is occurring to our global climate, from the melting of icecaps and mountain glaciers to the slow evaporation of methane from the Russian tundra is, and will definitely remain, under intense scientific OBSERVATION.
We got all bases covered:
No wayyy Hosay we are gonna be caught by surprise!
So not to worry!

What irks me is that we humans glibly and somewhat proudly admit to possess the capacity of gradually terraforming Mars via emissions and yet we are steadily increasing Earth's temperature via greenhouse gasses and there seems to be no real concern.
But we do keep everything under observation-as if observation alone will stop the effects of our irresponsible behavior.
Weird!

We have capacity to make changes for a better way in light of known worsening conditions, even with disagreeing with consensus of almost all scientists, as do the businesses that have profits with such affecting those conditions, which are behind the politics with making it seem it is all doubtful, without legitimate scientific basis. It is inexcusable irresponsibility to do nothing and not investigate further what is being denied. There can always be more to see or investigate rather than make no change and discourage others from that.

 

[Loudmouth]

What irks me is that we humans glibly and somewhat proudly admit to possess the capacity of gradually terraforming Mars via emissions and yet we are steadily increasing Earth's temperature via greenhouse gasses and there seems to be no real concern.

What economics has taught us is that humans are really bad at sacrificing now in order to get rewards further down the road. The most recent economic recession is a perfect example. Even Alan Greenspan had to admit that his entire economic plan required companies to look after their own long term stability, even if that meant sacrificing short term profits. Guess what happened? Those companies went after short term profits that they knew were not health in the long term and it crashed the economy.

What do we see from conservatives now with respect to climate change? They argue that it is too expensive to fix now, so we shouldn't do it. Sound familiar?

 

[FredVB]

The time is coming when the change will be forced on all of us, but when it is too late. It is better with many of us making all the change we can with our own choices and it won't have to be as bad, we who can should grow our own food and necessities, live with more simplicity, and eliminate dependence on animal products, these will all make significant difference.