• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Heissonear, Dec 30, 2014.

  1. rambot

    rambot Senior Member

    +3,855
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Greens
    You can't prove that. You have an incomplete data set.
     
  2. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +887
    Non-Denom
    Married
    True. The "always" should be replaced with "commonly occurs"

    The example of nearby elevation change that significantly impacts local geographic temperature exposes a major weakness in use of "grid" based collection data. Yes, how there will be major missing data within temperature databases!!

    Now why do many CAGW promoters try to state the "missing data" as unimportant?

    And why do the CAGW promoters present earth temperature graphs with second decimal place accuracy?

    The temperatures in areas unaccounted for (i.e. missing data) produces inaccuracies when using incomplete data collections.

    One form of whitewash would be "Ho Humm"!

    .
     
  3. [serious]

    [serious] 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA Supporter

    +1,626
    Non-Denom
    Married
    But what would a suitable data set look like?

    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.
     
  4. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,918
    Agnostic
    Those local geographic features do not change from year to year. Remember, these are increases in temperature from year to year AT THE SAME LOCATIONS. Since geography does not change, the change in temperature can not be cause by changing geography. However, the concentration of a greenhouse gas is changing . . .

    At what point are they accounted for? Did we, just by random, happen to place those thermometers in just the areas that are increasing in temperature from year to year? Since you claim the data is missing, you need to show us the error in sampling and the errors in weighting different data sets.

    Or do you require a thermometer on every square foot of the planet making 10,000 measurements an hour?
     
  5. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +477
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Why climate deniers cannot face the truth: and the fact that Heissonear keeps taunting the data with 'fear-mongers' etc shows he's probably prone to this himself!




    Climate-Change Denialism and the Problems of Psychology | TIME.com
     
  6. RickG

    RickG Senior Veteran Supporter

    +1,392
    Presbyterian
    Married
    I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know the difference between weather and climate. By his way of reasoning, not even the seasons exist. How can we have summer, winter, fall, and spring with all that incomplete data?
     
  7. rambot

    rambot Senior Member

    +3,855
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Greens

    You haven't ACTUALLY specified which "areas" are "unaccounted for"; not in terms of percent but in terms of geographical areas. I think there will be a LOT of people in this thread who'd love to see that from you.
     
  8. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +887
    Non-Denom
    Married
    .

    You haven’t answered the thread question.

    The CAGW Bandwagon group promoting CO2 induced Global Warming have not made clear to others their limitations and inaccuracies when stating and graphing their "Global Earth Temperature" values and charts.

    Others have tried to detour the issue by presenting "data sets" by weather agencies in graphed form to show "anomalies" - changes in temperature within these data sets over time - but such numbers ploted to the second decimal are from severely incomplete databases of "earth's global temperature" .

    When we talk about Global Earth Temperature for a period of time it means Global Temperature for a period of time. Not calculations from severely incomplete databases.

    Some then try to shift weight to the incomplete data sets like the calculated temperatures from them are near equivalent to claim accurate earth temperature change as a whole, accurate enough for the earth's global temperature, even to claim accuracy to within 0.1 °C. Who are they really fooling? It's themselves .

    Some think too highly of themselves and what they can do and claim before the masses.

    And others cannot make rational observations of nature and measurement methods themselves and fall prey to the claims of others, even from media and scientific groups.

    The fundamental evidence of CO2 induced Global Warming is first knowing Global Surface Temperature values, either per day, month, and/or year. But no one has or can give such data.

    Once again, temperature statements from incomplete data sets are not Global Surface Temperature data, and particularly within 0.1 °C accuracy , much less 0.01 °C accuracy .

    Incomplete data sets do not capture the Earth's Atmospheric Energy and the Atmospheric Energy Change that occurs over time, nor the one parameter to express that Atmospheric Energy, that being earths surface temperature.

    .
     
  9. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +477
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    You don't appear to have engaged substantially with the many fact-filled replies given to you!

    You're just blowing raspberries now by repeating your own presuppositions not supported by the peer-reviewed data everyone's been linking to!

    Others have tried to 'detour' this by asking you how many temperature stations would satisfy you when measuring New York city's temperature: so how's that going?

    They're complete enough. The human race will be adding more and more sensors and sniffers into every nook and cranny of this planet. Everyone's mobile phone will soon be as powerful as a Star Trek Tri-corder. The question for you is when is enough data enough? Mate, the peer-reviewed agencies take the temperature stations seriously. Why are you somehow above the conclusions of Christians in climate science who are doing peer-reviewed work and valuing these data sets? Who are you really to snub their work? Why is your qualification in geology so superior to their qualifications in actual climate science? :doh: (The buffoonery of your presuppositions makes me cringe!)

    I suppose you have some nearly impossible standard like a temperature station every square metre of the earth before you'll believe climate change? Who are you really fooling? It's yourself! :doh: :thumbsup: :doh:

    You feel too highly of yourself and what you can do before the masses of people actually qualified in this subject! Unless you're a climatologist, I don't really care about your 'opinion' but the peer-reviewed science coming out of climate labs (where many climatologists are Christians NOT engaged in some tinfoil hat paranoid conspiracy of yours!)

    Yeah, gotta watch those scientific groups! They might be measuring real world data or something! In just 15 years you'll hear people asking what they're going to call Glacier National park now that it doesn't have any glaciers in it!

    WRONG! The fundamental evidence of CO2 induced Global Warming is FIRST OF ALL UNDERSTANDING CO2! I thought that was self-evident! Read up on Joseph Fourier and how he realised that the Earth should be a LOT colder but for greenhouse gases. Read up on Fourier devices, named after him. Read up on the Radiative Forcing Equation which basically counts how much energy is trapped with different CO2 values. Get over your petty statistical games with temperature data sets, and do some reading on real physics in the real world of CO2 and how it traps heat!

    They are Global Surface Temperature data, but just not 'good enough' for you. Why don't you tell us all what level of 'completeness' would be good enough for you, and justify why? Why not stop flapping your gums at us and try publishing a peer-reviewed article in a climate journal about the incompleteness of temperature data? Maybe then you'll realise that this is not a game and you need to RESPECT peer-review and realise where you are so wrong.

    Tell me, if you repeat it 3 times and click your Ruby Slippers together does it make it true? :thumbsup:
     
  10. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +887
    Non-Denom
    Married
    The below repost has not been addressed, which summarizes the dilemma to "incomplete and inaccurate numbers about earth's global temperature over time".


    Nobody has answered the thread question.

    The CAGW Bandwagon group promoting CO2 induced Global Warming have not made clear to others their limitations and inaccuracies when stating and graphing their "Global Earth Temperature" values and charts.

    Others have tried to detour the issue by presenting "data sets" by weather agencies in graphed form to show "anomalies" - changes in temperature within these data sets over time - but such numbers ploted to the second decimal are from severely incomplete databases of "earth's global temperature" .

    When we talk about Global Earth Temperature for a period of time it means Global Temperature for a period of time. Not calculations from severely incomplete databases.

    Some then try to shift weight to the incomplete data sets like the calculated temperatures from them are near equivalent to claim accurate earth temperature change as a whole, accurate enough for the earth's global temperature, even to claim accuracy to within 0.1 °C. Who are they really fooling? It's themselves .

    Some think too highly of themselves and what they can do and claim before the masses.

    And others cannot make rational observations of nature and measurement methods themselves and fall prey to the claims of others, even from media and scientific groups.

    The fundamental evidence of CO2 induced Global Warming is first knowing Global Surface Temperature values, either per day, month, and/or year. But no one has or can give such data.

    Once again, temperature statements from incomplete data sets are not Global Surface Temperature data, and particularly within 0.1 °C accuracy , much less 0.01 °C accuracy .

    Incomplete data sets do not capture the Earth's Atmospheric Energy and the Atmospheric Energy Change that occurs over time, nor the one parameter to express that Atmospheric Energy, that being earths surface temperature.

    .
     
  11. Mainframes

    Mainframes Regular Member

    595
    +11
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    If you measured the temperature over a ten meter length at one meter intervals, would that you consider that to be incomplete data?
     
  12. [serious]

    [serious] 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA Supporter

    +1,626
    Non-Denom
    Married
    You must have missed the second post somehow, despite replying to it:
    I tried explaining that you kept confusing absolute temperature with anomaly as well:
    http://www.christianforums.com/t7858556-8/#post66951543
    http://www.christianforums.com/t7858556-12/#post67012700
    http://www.christianforums.com/t7858556-8/#post66954830
    http://www.christianforums.com/t7858556-11/#post66990131
     
  13. [serious]

    [serious] 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA Supporter

    +1,626
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Oh, and speaking of unanswered questions, we are still waiting on how complete the data set has to be before we can know what temperature it is:
     
  14. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +887
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Posters still failing to acknowledge the errant inaccuracies in the Earth's Single Global Temperature stated for any given period of time.

    It has been a dubious promotion, particularly with the major inaccuracy it contains.

    Every location on earth is continuously changing temperature. Temperature over time is never static.

    To pick one temperature value for one location is meaningless.

    To pick one temperature for any "region", particularly if mountainous, would have error in total energy present, much less expressed as a single temperature point.

    But on goes the dubious activity, faced by promoters or not.
     
  15. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +477
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Tell me, if you repeat it 3 times and click your Ruby Slippers together does it make it true?
     
  16. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,918
    Agnostic
    You are still failing to accept that the increase in mesured temperature is statistically significant, meaning that the signal of increased temperature is greater than the noise of measurement.

    The average temperature over a 30 year time span can tell you if the climate is changing. Or do you think that there was no change in temperature during the ice ages that saw 1 mile thick glaciers where NY City now stands?
     
  17. [serious]

    [serious] 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA Supporter

    +1,626
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Ahem,

    Really? think about the implication of such a silly requirement:

    Every person on earth is continuously changing age. Age over time is never static.

    To pick one age value for one person is meaningless.

    To pick one average age for any "population", particularly if diverse, would have error in total experience present, much less expressed as a single age value.

    But on goes the dubious activity, faced by promoters or not.​

    Now, that might be a very creative response for when a teenager gets carded, but I don't think it would be a terribly effective argument.
     
  18. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +887
    Non-Denom
    Married
    1. Dubious defending of man's ambitious effort to reduce the temperature of the entire earth to a single temperature value for a period of time like the year 2014.

    2. Dubious defending (or looking away) of the massive amount of data MISSING to do such.

    3. Then to present computations from incomplete databases to the second decimal place for the earth for 2014.

    Are the defenders coherent of the situation discussed?

    Show all again data graphed to the second decimal place which show 2014 was "the hottest year on record".

    Do you understand dubious disinformation propagation?

    All for making hyped claims.

    .
     
  19. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +477
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Dubious repetition and clicking of ruby slippers together to make your dreams come true.

    Dubious looking away from all the evidence (retreating ice caps and glaciers and ecosystems) of the massive amount of data PRESENT to convince you.

    Ignore the tens of thousands of temperature stations and satellite readings to convince yourself there is 'nothing to see here'. Um, there is? :doh:

    What does this even mean? You're not being coherent about anything.

    Some media reporting missed the subtleties in the science. Blame the media, not the scientists or databases. They are reporting this to the media as accurately as they can, but we've seen reports showing 2014 to be within the margin of error for the hottest year on record.

    Hey, dude, you're the one relying on big tobacco scientists that are now defending big coal. Oh the irony!

    No hype here: just science. But you can't handle it.
     
  20. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +887
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Let's see, today Siberia has temperatures ranging down to -45 below °F, the U.S. has the Sub-Tropical and Polar jet streams moving surface low pressure cells latitudinally across the states with extensive polar air mixing with Pacific and Gulf of Mexico drawn northwatds warm moist air, dumping rain, sleet, ice and snow over sections of ten or more states over a 24 to 48 hour period, with trailing low pressure cells following in time, as the Northeast still sees the back side surface air flow of the low pressure cells into the polar air masses.

    Ditto weather review for other parts of the world, even Mt. Olympus in Cyprus seeing three feet of snow this week, etc.

    But there WILL BE calculate just one single GLOBAL temperature for each day this week, and for each of the days that were weeks before and that will be weeks ahead.

    The decimal place of these calculated numbers will be to the one-hundredth of a °C.

    Sooner or later people will more critically examine what some "climate scientists" are producing and the conclusions they state.

    This data will be placed in pretty graphs in peer-reviewed literature that shows "error". The amount of error will be masked, but never mind. The error in spacial time coverage will be in °C, particular values plotted before the year 2000 that are compared to more recent times, but never mind. To show a 0.73 °C change in the time-series plot is still promoted as meaningfull and used by others.

    And some are ignorant enough to defend the conclusions.

    What ever happened to independently examining things before accepting them as facts?

    When will people start to review the "scientific data" has become propaganda, not reality? Pushed and promoted by select bias groups?

    .
     
Loading...