�Global Temperature� � Why Should We Trust A Statistic That Might Not Even Exist?

[Teallaura]

The size of bloomers goes down as the temperature goes up over time.

Ah - definitely a guy thing!

Thanks!

[Teallaura]

I thought that much was patently obvious. But I guess when you've got less of a sense of humor than a militant third wave feminist...

To be fair, you really need coffee before it becomes obvious... and to be a guy...

[rogue06]

To be fair, you really need coffee before it becomes obvious... and to be a guy...

No coffee but definitely a guy smiley flirtdance.gif

[Teallaura]

No coffee but definitely a guy [ATTACH=CONFIG]39397[/ATTACH]

You throw your back our again?

[oxmixmudd]

And things would get even more squirrely if your temperate average was based almost entirely on readings taken on the sunlight side!

And exactly what moron would try to take define the average temperature of the moon as a whole by only taking readings on its sunlit side?

The average surface temperature of a planet tells us in a summary how much energy from the sun is being retained by that object over time. If it changes, then more or less energy is being radiated back into space, or more or less energy is being created by the sun.

Planets with thick GHG atmospheres (e.g. Venus) retain much more energy over time that planets with no atmospheres.

The more GHG (all other things being equal) the more energy is retained. One way to look for changes in that value is to take measurements from a set of points across the surface of object, then average them and compare them over time. A large number of evenly spaced points would be the most accurate, but there are other ways.

In a planet with an atmosphere, that energy moves around a lot due to a myriad of convective and radiative processes. It transfers into and out of the oceans, the air, and the land.

But over time, increases in the GHG will cause more energy to be retained all other things being equal. We are pouring GHGes into the atmosphere. That will result in more energy being retained that if we were not. And over time, that will produce (and is producing) a gradual warming of the planet as a whole. The oceans, the air, and the land. We can measure that trend by averaging the thousands of temperature measurements over the surface of the planet and comparing them year over year, decade over decade.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

And exactly what moron would try to take define the average temperature of the moon as a whole by only taking readings on its sunlit side?

The same morons who try to average the surface temperature of the Earth by using temperature stations predominantly located in artificially warm urban regions and then arbitrarily "adjusting" the results to make the planet appear even warmer than it really is.

I hope that answers your question.

[oxmixmudd]

Of course, because many temperature stations today are located in urban environments, and stations in rural and colder regions have been quietly decommissioned, or simply never existed. And yet organizations like NOAA and the fraudulent IPCC still feel the need to adjust current temperatures UP. It's a scientific farce!

They don't 'adjust them up' in the sense you imply. The adjust them according to what sound scientific studies have discovered about the differences between older methods and current methods - such as ToOB (Time of Observation Bias). That specific shift in observational method happens to result in a net positive bias relative to older measurements (requiring a compensating positive increment in modern measurements when compared to older measurements) - but that is because older methods of taking measurements tended to produce higher average temperatures than modern methods.

This is why with science you've got to get your head out of the conspiracy theory bucket and just start looking at the data and the facts. You see an adjustment up and think someone it twisting the data, but the fact is measurement methods and timing have changed over time. And when you examine averages made with the different measurement timings, biases will result. To get accurate comparisons of measurements made with different timings, you have to back those biases out. Those biases are well understood - there is no magic, there is no conspiracy.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

The same morons who try to average the surface temperature of the Earth by using temperature stations predominantly located in artificially warm urban regions and then arbitrarily "adjusting" the results to make the planet appear even warmer than it really is.

I hope that answers your question.

All it does when you make stupid comments like that is show how little you actually know and understand about how the global averages are created and the SCIENCE behind it.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39378[/ATTACH]

ok - I now see how you think it 'supports' global warming - and in that light, it is funny

Unfortunately it could also be taken - especially in thread post context in which it was posted - to imply you can't compare temperature DATA from the past with temperature DATA from the present - which was the point I thought you were trying to make (i.e. that the underwear represented incompatible data measurements, not the effect of warming temperatures on clothing preferences).

But if you are looking at is as implying the need for warmer underwear in the past, then it does indeed 'support' global warming.

So I apologize to you for saying you were trying to support pseudo-science.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

They don't 'adjust them up' in the sense you imply. The adjust them according to what sound scientific studies have discovered about the differences between older methods and current methods - such as ToOB (Time of Observation Bias). That specific shift in observational method happens to result in a net negative bias in modern measurements (requiring a compensating positive value relative to older measurements) - but that is because older methods of taking measurements tended to produce higher average temperatures than modern methods.

This is why with science you've got to get your head out of the conspiracy theory bucket and just start looking and the data and the facts. You see an adjustment up and think someone it twisting the data, but the fact is measurement methods and timing have changed over time. And when you examine averages made with the different measurement timings, biases will result. To get an accurate comparisons of measurements made with different timings, you have to back those biases out. Those biases are well understood - there is no magic, there is no conspiracy.

Jim

Right... let's second guess past measurements when they don't fit our hypothesis. Science, y'all!



https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...the-year-2000/

[Mountain Man]

All it does when you make stupid comments like that is show how little you actually know and understand about how the global averages are created and the SCIENCE behind it.

Jim

As the saying goes, science doesn't lie, but scientists do!

[oxmixmudd]

Right... let's second guess past measurements when they don't fit our hypothesis. Science, y'all!



https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...the-year-2000/

It's not second guessing (ToOB). It's simple fact. The raw data has when the measurements were taken. Computing the associated bias from the measurement times is just a matter of applying the associated equations.

As for your article - the apparent change is significantly exaggerated by a bit of slight of hand and banking on the ignorance of the readers. That particular bit of misleading data has been discussed here before, but I don't remember when.

Jim

[Joel]

This is very close to arguing with John Martin about why the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the Sun.


Jim

I don't know John Martin.
My point is that firstfloor seemed to be conflating temperature and heat. (And conflating part of the earth with the Planet Earth.)

The average surface temperature of a planet tells us in a summary how much energy from the sun is being retained by that object over time.

Is that true? I've heard it explained that the planet can be gaining heat while average surface temperature remains flat, because e.g. the oceans are warming.

E.g. "Researchers say this shifting pattern of ocean heat accounts for the slowdown in the global surface temperature trend observed during the past decade. Researchers...found a specific layer of the Indian and Pacific oceans between 300 and 1,000 feet (100 and 300 meters) below the surface has been accumulating more heat... 'Greenhouse gases continued to trap extra heat, but for about 10 years starting in the early 2000s, global average surface temperature stopped climbing and even cooled a bit,' said Willis."
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4655

[oxmixmudd]

I don't know John Martin.
My point is that firstfloor seemed to be conflating temperature and heat. (And conflating part of the earth with the Planet Earth.)



Is that true? I've heard it explained that the planet can be gaining heat while average surface temperature remains flat, because e.g. the oceans are warming.

E.g. "Researchers say this shifting pattern of ocean heat accounts for the slowdown in the global surface temperature trend observed during the past decade. Researchers...found a specific layer of the Indian and Pacific oceans between 300 and 1,000 feet (100 and 300 meters) below the surface has been accumulating more heat... 'Greenhouse gases continued to trap extra heat, but for about 10 years starting in the early 2000s, global average surface temperature stopped climbing and even cooled a bit,' said Willis."
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4655

Over time the heat absorbed by the ocean raises its surface temperature to a point where the atmosphere once again can warm. As heat is added to the system by the increased retained heat due to GHGes, it does flow back and forth between various elements of the planet surface. But Over time the surface atmospheric temperature trend is still up. Yes, it is very complicated and not easily simplified, which is part of the problem in explaining what is going on to the public at large.

Jim

[firstfloor]

FF2, let's assume I grant all of that - what does it have to do with the external validity of using an average as a metric for a highly complex system? From what I can see, all you've done with this post is SUPPORT MY ARGUMENT.

There is an average surface temperature and it is about 14 degrees Centigrade. It does not change over the short term. It is not affected by time of day, or the seasons. Making it useful is a case of improving measurement techniques and gathering lots and lots of data. Easier nowadays with satellites, I think.