Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[rambot]

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.

Because science [points finger up in the air]!

 

[hurste1951]

I think RickG takes the "WIN" on this one. I'm not surprised the Heissonear's error came DIRECTLY AFTER RICK'S MAP. But that's what we get from Heissonear.

.

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

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

NOTE TO HEISSONEAR: you should listen to people like Rick who actually understand this topic.

 

[Heissonear]

What makes people think there is one temperature value that represents accurately to the second decimal the "Global Temperature" for each year of the past century?

And who are those who graph the yearly Global Temperature data points like they represent earth's temperature change over the past century?

.

 

[Loudmouth]

What makes people think there is one temperature value that represents accurately to the second decimal the "Global Temperature" for each year of the past century?

There is always one mean for a set of data. Why would you expect multiple means?

 

[RickG]

What makes people think there is one temperature value that represents accurately to the second decimal the "Global Temperature" for each year of the past century?

And who are those who graph the yearly Global Temperature data points like they represent earth's temperature change over the past century?

.

There are several of us here who would love very much to teach you. We have extensively offered to explain things openly and honestly. I personally don't care if you accept it or not, I only want you to understand the process. However, it is more than obvious that you have no intention of learning anything. But what else can we expect from someone who professes to be a Geochemist, yet has shown no understanding of even basic chemistry, much less Geochemistry, not only in this thread but numerous other threads; and also professes to be a Stratigrapher, yet believes the geologic column doesn't exist. And last, but not least, paints the entire scientific community as a global conspiracy.

 

[hurste1951]

There is always one mean for a set of data. Why would you expect multiple means?

Don't confuse poor Heissonear with that high falutin' math stuff. We don't have time for all that tensor calculus you are peddling here. "Means", next thing you know you'll be talkin' discrete fourier transforms.

This is a RANT THREAD. Science (and math) have no place here!

 

[[serious]]

What makes people think there is one temperature value that represents accurately to the second decimal the "Global Temperature" for each year of the past century?

I assume that comes from not listening when people repeatedly explain that no one is talking about a single global temperature. They are talking about a mean temperature anomaly.

What is this? 10, 15 times that you've just repeated the same demonstrably false claim of a
some as yet unsourced One-True-Global-Temperature you seem to think some one is positing.

 

[Heissonear]

Read the first post. Not being able to measure the entire earth leads to incomplete databases and conclusions therein.

Even your own CAGW Bandwagon experts confess this incompleteness.

It is not possible to calculate the global average temperature anomaly with perfect accuracy because the underlying data contain measurement errors and because the measurements do not cover the whole globe.

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets


Whitewash your limitations so they become "non-important".

Why do you continue to redirect this threads focus and it's importance?

Your sampling, measuring, and conclusions are from incomplete data sets.

So far you have not face up to this missing data "problem". Including the errant production and promotion of Alarmism.

.

 

[hurste1951]

Read the first post. Not being able to measure the entire earth leads to incomplete databases and conclusions therein.

The exact same thing is true for geology.

For those who don't know geology as well as Heissonear you may not know it but our understanding of what rocks are under your feet is built on boreholes which are NOT drilled every 5 inches across the entire globe, but rather across different areas and the information BETWEEN these boreholes is interpreted.

It is something called CORRELATION in geology. Those of us with ACTUAL GEOLOGY degrees learn about this in Freshman year.

In many cases the way we understood the rocks under your feet was looking at OUTCROPS which often occur with even MORE SPARSENESS than boreholes! Had to wait to find a cliff somewhere, or, worse yet, a SET of cliffs with different sets of formation on them to make a GEOLOGIC COLUMN for the area.

Heissonear is very cagey to NOT POINT THIS OUT TO YOU. He is a geologist (or so he claims). But I guess it's OK for HIS area but not for stuff he disagrees with.

Whitewash your limitations so they become "non-important".

Heissonear has little understanding of limitations of SAMPLING in science. Clearly. Heissonear will NEVER be happy with climate data until every single point on the earth is measured and then he will complain about something else.

This is how you know he's backing a "Cause" and not science.

Why do you continue to redirect this threads focus and it's importance?

BECAUSE YOU CONTINUALLY MISREPRESENT SCIENCE.

And you accidentally stumbled upon a bunch of us who have PhD's in science. I have a PhD in your area of expertise.

If you can't handle that, then maybe, just maybe, you are the one trying to lead a bandwagon.

 

[eclipsenow]

Read the first post. Not being able to measure the entire earth leads to incomplete databases and conclusions therein.

Even your own CAGW Bandwagon experts confess this incompleteness.
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

Whitewash your limitations so they become "non-important".
Why do you continue to redirect this threads focus and it's importance?
Your sampling, measuring, and conclusions are from incomplete data sets.
So far you have not face up to this missing data "problem". Including the errant production and promotion of Alarmism.

Why do you care so much about this? Seriously, why bother? What's your problem with moving off coal and oil and gas, all of which pollute, kill 7 million people a year worldwide, and will ultimately run out anyway? Why NOT move onto more sustainable energy sources? You know we have nukes that eat nuclear waste now?

 

[[serious]]

The exact same thing is true for geology.

Ha! that means rocks don't exist!

Read the first post. Not being able to measure the entire earth leads to incomplete databases and conclusions therein.

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?

 

[rambot]

Read the first post. Not being able to measure the entire earth leads to incomplete databases and conclusions therein.

Even your own CAGW Bandwagon experts confess this incompleteness.




Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

The precision with which you willingly take a quote out of context is surgeon like! Doesn't really do much to support your point though.

Why do you continue to redirect this threads focus and it's importance?
Your sampling, measuring, and conclusions are from incomplete data sets.
So far you have not face up to this missing data "problem". Including the errant production and promotion of Alarmism.
.

What's baffling to me is you don't have a rational understanding of what a complete data set it. Throughout this thread, you've been given (time and time and time and time and time again) explanations and challenging questions yet you seem to ignore explanations and avoid questions, constantly repeating the same questions DIRECTLY after answers have been given.

It's like you don't even know what you want to know. It's actually really confusing trying to grasp your "side of the argument" (because it honestly doesn't appear as though you have one).


You sound a bit like you've taken a statistics class and are trying to jerry rig

 

[Heissonear]

Is it clear?

The MET Office statement quoted earlier mentioned their ability to measure earth's temperature accuracy to 0.1°C.

Imagine, “one tenth of a degree ” for the whole world!

The hubris (arrogant pride) of their statement is unfathomable. And to do so with an incomplete data collection of earth.

.

 

[rambot]

That same quote in context means essentially NOTHING towards your overarching whine.

So yes, it is clear. It is clearly wrong.

 

[[serious]]

Is it clear?

The MET Office statement quoted earlier mentioned their ability to measure earth's temperature accuracy to 0.1°C.

Imagine, “one tenth of a degree ” for the whole world!

The hubris (arrogant pride) of their statement is unfathomable. And to do so with an incomplete data collection of earth.

.

No, it talks about their ability to measure temperature anomaly.

 

[Heissonear]

.

Your sampling, measuring, and conclusions about earth's temperature change from year to year are from incomplete data sets.

So far you have not faced up to this missing data "problem". Including the errant production and promotion of Alarmism.

.

 

[Loudmouth]

.

Your sampling, measuring, and conclusions about earth's temperature change from year to year are from incomplete data sets.

So far you have not face up to this missing data "problem". Including the errant production and promotion of Alarmism.

.

Why can't we estimate global climate change with a sample of the Earth's surface temps?

Do you understand how statistics works, or sampling?

 

[[serious]]

.

Your sampling, measuring, and conclusions about earth's temperature change from year to year are from incomplete data sets.

So far you have not faced up to this missing data "problem". Including the errant production and promotion of Alarmism.

.

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.

 

[RickG]

.

Your sampling, measuring, and conclusions about earth's temperature change from year to year are from incomplete data sets.

So far you have not faced up to this missing data "problem". Including the errant production and promotion of Alarmism.

.

Just specifically what do you mean by an incomplete data set? What makes an incomplete data set?

Let's look at NASA/GISS. They divide the earth up into 80 grid boxes with equal sides of approximately 2500 km. Each of those 80 grid boxes is then divided into 100 equal grid boxes. From the center of every grid box, every station within 1200 km of that center is used to calculate a weighted average from the center. The weighted average eliminates any bias from adjacent grid boxes.

 

[Heissonear]

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?

.