Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[Heissonear]

Have many been talked in to over analyzing and then over promoting "Global Temperatures"?

Yep.

Do the major databases each line up? No. They are riddled with incomplete information .

There are many databases, the three principal terrestrial surface datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC) and the two satellite datasets (RSS and UAH).

Much more observations are needed. And that "CO2 Group thinkers" would have us think they know the Earth’s Temperature at any point in time is devious .

Such is to be exposed.

Conjecture promotes propaganda .

.

 

[[serious]]

Have many been talked in to over analyzing and then over promoting "Global Temperatures"?

Yep.

Well, Washington Post gave a number for global temperature and we agreed that they are terrible at covering science and should not be considered experts.

One doesn't really count as "many" and since neither you nor I were able to find where they got that number from, I'm not sure how you are claiming that some one talked them into it.

Now, when i initially asked you to find any example of some one giving an absolute global temperature, I knew it was an attainable goal for you. The exercise was to demonstrate to you, in a nonconfrontational way, how much leg work was needed to find even an amateur using absolute temperature rather than anomaly. Think back to your hunt for that. Think about how many google searches did you run before finding that one article. And yes, I feel comfortable assuming you didn't find it right out of the gate, because I remember my own hunt for such figure when I was first educating my self on this stuff.

Do the major databases each line up? No. They are riddled with incomplete information .

There are many databases, the three principal terrestrial surface datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC) and the two satellite datasets (RSS and UAH).

5 data sets that don't line up? Wow, that would certainly introduce some doubt.

What would be devistating to your point would be if there were some graph that had all those on the same chart showing that they lined up very well.

I sure hope no one posts that...

Much more observations are needed. And that "CO2 Group thinkers" would have us think they know the Earth’s Temperature at any point in time is devious .

Such is to be exposed.

Conjecture promotes propaganda .

.

Let's recap:
Someone told you that no one saw the pause coming.
The reality is that it was predicted well before any pause was seen.
Someone told you that absolute global temperatures were being used despite being unreliable given current data sets
The reality is that absolute global temperatures are not used in scientific literature and competent reporting. Anomaly is used and IS reliable for current data sets.
Someone told you that HadCRUT4 data was tweaked
The reality is that HadCRUT4 data is unadjusted
Someone told you that different data sets for temperature anomaly don't line up
The reality is that they line up really well.

Now, obviously there IS someone trying to put one over on you in regards to climate. You're looking in the wrong direction right now though.

 

[RickG]

Well, Washington Post gave a number for global temperature and we agreed that they are terrible at covering science and should not be considered experts.

One doesn't really count as "many" and since neither you nor I were able to find where they got that number from, I'm not sure how you are claiming that some one talked them into it.

Now, when i initially asked you to find any example of some one giving an absolute global temperature, I knew it was an attainable goal for you. The exercise was to demonstrate to you, in a nonconfrontational way, how much leg work was needed to find even an amateur using absolute temperature rather than anomaly. Think back to your hunt for that. Think about how many google searches did you run before finding that one article. And yes, I feel comfortable assuming you didn't find it right out of the gate, because I remember my own hunt for such figure when I was first educating my self on this stuff. 5 data sets that don't line up? Wow, that would certainly introduce some doubt.

What would be devistating to your point would be if there were some graph that had all those on the same chart showing that they lined up very well.

I sure hope no one posts that...

Let's recap:
Someone told you that no one saw the pause coming.
The reality is that it was predicted well before any pause was seen.
Someone told you that absolute global temperatures were being used despite being unreliable given current data sets
The reality is that absolute global temperatures are not used in scientific literature and competent reporting. Anomaly is used and IS reliable for current data sets.
Someone told you that HadCRUT4 data was tweaked
The reality is that HadCRUT4 data is unadjusted
Someone told you that different data sets for temperature anomaly don't line up
The reality is that they line up really well.

Now, obviously there IS someone trying to put one over on you in regards to climate. You're looking in the wrong direction right now though.

Let's not forget about his erroneous claims about CO2 either. A person professing to have credentials in Geochemistry would know the significance of CO2 in the atmosphere. A Geochemist would also know that it is not the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere with respect to those of other gases that makes the difference, rather it is the doubling effect, which is shown to on average 3.5 deg. C per doubling.

 

[Heissonear]

Imagine obtaining to 2 decimal place accuracy a Global Temperature of earth, when every location on earth the temperature is CONSTANTLY changing during the day, every day!!!

Shady science?

Yep.

Putting trust in anomalies extracted from incomplete, inaccurate databases?

Yep.

CAGW based on such?

Yep.

.

 

[RickG]

Imagine obtaining to 2 decimal place accuracy a Global Temperature of earth, when every location on earth the temperature is CONSTANTLY changing during the day, every day!!!

Shady science?

Yep.

No shady science whatsoever. It is only your misunderstanding of what climate is and how global temperatures are obtained.

I would love to discuss this process with you in detail if you are genuinely concerned about it and willing to review the process with me and discuss your concerns. Perhaps in a new thread so we can get of on the right foot from the start. What say you?

 

[hurste1951]

No shady science whatsoever. It is only your misunderstanding of what climate is and how global temperatures are obtained.

I would love to discuss this process with you in detail if you are genuinely concerned about it and willing to review the process with me and discuss your concerns. Perhaps in a new thread so we can get of on the right foot from the start. What say you?

Rick, unfortunately you are a GEOLOGIST and likely Heissonear will not talk to you. You see, if Heissonear has to talk to a fellow earth scientist who fails to believe in him then he tends to run away.

One of the things Heissonear has been harping about is the NUMBER OF DECIMAL PLACES. This is actually a topic around significant figures. I have found some indications from other places that increasing the number of sampled points allows one to get more significant digits but I can't find the best explanation of it.

As a scientist perhaps you could discuss this point with Heissonear. If you talk about non-earth science stuff he might feel less threatened.

(He seems to have significant problems with this concept. No pun intended).

 

[RickG]

Rick, unfortunately you are a GEOLOGIST and likely Heissonear will not talk to you. You see, if Heissonear has to talk to a fellow earth scientist who fails to believe in him then he tends to run away.

One of the things Heissonear has been harping about is the NUMBER OF DECIMAL PLACES. This is actually a topic around significant figures. I have found some indications from other places that increasing the number of sampled points allows one to get more significant digits but I can't find the best explanation of it.

As a scientist perhaps you could discuss this point with Heissonear. If you talk about non-earth science stuff he might feel less threatened.

(He seems to have significant problems with this concept. No pun intended).

There is a lot misrepresentation circulating the usual climate change denial sites with the current NASA/NOAA news release concerning the 2014 record, which involves some statistical smoke-and-mirrors. The actual temperature anomalies statistical confidence level is statistically significant. The misrepresentation is with the probability comparison of 2014 actually being the highest temperature, with respect to the other record years since 1998.

With each years final statistical number there is a statistically calculated margin of error. Each set of data is unique and will exhibit a specific margin of error. Thus, the margin of error is different for every year. It so happens that the warmest years from 1998 to present all overlap when the statistical upper and lower limits are compared. NASA came up with a 48% probability that 2014 was the warmest with the others having a much less probability of being the warmest when those upper and lower limits are applied.

 

[Heissonear]

.

Every location on earth is constantly changing temperature from morning to night, and from night to morning. Latitude, elevation, elevation change in local terrain, humidity at the surface, humidity with atmospheric height, amount of evaporation, amount of atmospheric water vapor condensation during vertical thermal convection,, duration of humidity exposed to solar radiation (i.e. cloud, cloud thickness, influence of aerosols, rate of frontal movement, difference in frontal air masses pressure and temperature mixing over geographic distance over time, wind speed and direction changes, and the list goes on.

And for limited years man has "weather collection stations" taking measurements in most cases two temperatures a day in geographically incomplete locations. Just two temperatures data points per day will do, even for many locations geographically hundreds of miles a part.

Have to love the sparse "observed climate data"!!!

Have to love the graphs Alarmists base their claims on!!!

.

 

[[serious]]

Every location on earth is constantly changing temperature from morning to night, and from night to morning.

Hold on, your case is that we can't know if one year is hotter or cooler than another because it's colder at night?

 

[RickG]

.

Every location on earth is constantly changing temperature from morning to night, and from night to morning. Latitude, elevation, elevation change in local terrain, humidity at the surface, humidity with atmospheric height, amount of evaporation, amount of atmospheric water vapor condensation during vertical thermal convection,, duration of humidity exposed to solar radiation (i.e. cloud, cloud thickness, influence of aerosols, rate of frontal movement, difference in frontal air masses pressure and temperature mixing over geographic distance over time, wind speed and direction changes, and the list goes on.

And for limited years man has "weather collection stations" taking measurements in most cases two temperatures a day in geographically incomplete locations. Just two temperatures data points per day will do, even for many locations geographically hundreds of miles a part.

Have to love the sparse "observed climate data"!!!

Have to love the graphs Alarmists base their claims on!!!

.

I recommend you review the most frequently asked questions for GISS surface temperature analysis. Obtaining SAT's is not as arbitrary as you appear to be suggesting, it is a very methodic and precise science.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html

 

[eclipsenow]

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".

Love your work!

 

[Heissonear]

Love your work!

.

Are you going to address your "CAGW Activist" signature?

Does this show one who is a CAGW Bandwagon follower?

.

 

[RickG]

Hessioner, the invitation to discuss how temperature data is gathered is still open. Have you sourced the Q&A link I provided concerning specific questions within that yet?

 

[hurste1951]

Hessioner, the invitation to discuss how temperature data is gathered is still open. Have you sourced the Q&A link I provided concerning specific questions within that yet?

Rick, don't hold yer breath. Heissonear probably knows you are a geologist so he won't talk to you.

 

[rambot]

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

Universal agreement amongst the plebs would really help put pressure onto the lawmakers who are completely bought and paid for by industry lobbyists and scared to compromise the sacred cow of "potential economic growth".

 

[RickG]

Rick, don't hold yer breath. Heissonear probably knows you are a geologist so he won't talk to you.

Not to mention a third of my earth science degree consisted of climatology.

 

[RickG]

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

And what is wrong with that?

Or is this "Global data point" their best current achieveable attainment,

If you have a better method, I'm sure that the organizations that track this would be more that interested in it.

that should be given with a single decimal point that includes a "plus or minus" in amount of error?

The single data point is a statistical average of a gazillion different measurements and it does report a plus/minus probability error (range). How would you suggest it being represented?

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.

I gather you are not familiar with "ARGO". The oceans are quite well covered.

 

[Heissonear]

.

Let's address the incomplete temperature data bases with major accuracy issues that CAGW supporters still base their anomaly conclusions on.

Since temperature does not vary linearly with power (w/m2) it is possible to arrive at different spatial temperature distributions that have identical average temperatures, but very different energy balances. For example, two points with temperatures of 280K and 320K would have an average temperature of 300K and an equilibrium radiance of 471.5 w/m2. But two points each at 300K would also have an average temperature of 300K, but an equilibrium radiance of 459.3 w/m2.

So, with that in mind, the error bars not only render any conclusion about temperature trend being positive or not meaningless, the error range of the equilibrium energy balance is much larger due to the non linear relationship between the two. Since AGW is founded upon the premise that increasing CO2 changes the energy balance of the earth, attempting to quantify the manner in which it does so by averaging a parameter that has no direct relationship to energy balance renders the graph itself meaningless in terms of statistical accuracy and physics as well.

davidmhoffer on February 1, 2015 at 5:33 pm:

Uncertainty Ranges, Error Bars, and CIs | Watts Up With That?



Does the CAGW Elite understand the spatial issue to their temperature databases?

Don't say it does not exist!

Who needs to address the non-linear averaging problem quoted above, the non-Bandwagon scientists or the CAGW Supporters?

Does the CAGW Bandwagon experts try to average their temperature databases in °K, °C, or °F?

Yep.

Are the averaged temperature data points accurate to the change in net local and regional energy change over time?

No.

Go figure that such an errant use of spatial temperature data exists and that CAGW promoters hide such error than expose it!

Are the Climate Elite going to address the worthless spatial temperature data averaging - averaging non-linear temperature to power (w/m2) relationship? AND the inability to accurately calculate and know the energy balance change over time from spatial temperature data? Or are those who pose as Scientific Elite going to whitewash over this methodology dilemma?

How honest are CAGW Bandwagon experts?
.

 

[[serious]]

Let's address the incomplete temperature data bases with major accuracy issues that CAGW supporters still base their anomaly conclusions on.




davidmhoffer on February 1, 2015 at 5:33 pm:

Uncertainty Ranges, Error Bars, and CIs | Watts Up With That?

You realize you just quoted a random guy in the comments section, not the actual article, right?

I don't know who davidmhoffer is or why this particular guy-who-posts-in-comment-sections is so relevant in your eyes.

Mr. Random Commenter is right (in a broken clock sense) when he says that "temperature does not vary linearly with power." Power actually varies directly proportionally to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature

I'm also not clear on why he thinks any of that is relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[RickG]

You realize you just quoted a random guy in the comments section, not the actual article, right?

I don't know who davidmhoffer is or why this particular guy-who-posts-in-comment-sections is so relevant in your eyes.

Mr. Random Commenter is right (in a broken clock sense) when he says that "temperature does not vary linearly with power." Power actually varies directly proportionally to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature

I'm also not clear on why he thinks any of that is relevant to the topic at hand.

I wonder if he is confusing that with the increase in temperature with respect to the doubling of CO2 atmospheric content, which is approximately 3.5 deg. C for each doubling?