‘Global Temperature’ — Why Should We Trust A Statistic That Might Not Even Exist?

[firstfloor]

It's actually not true - you only need a skew - which is pretty easy to get when you average.

The question is 'does 'average global temperature' actually mean anything in the real world? Averages are seductive because they are so easy to do - but they are easily skewed and frequently run into external validity problems.

Planet Earth is a system in near equilibrium, irradiated by the Sun. if you think that the average temperature fluctuates, where does the heat go? Bear in mind that tiny differences in global average temperatures represent vast amounts of heat simply because the masses are equally enormous.

[Teallaura]

Planet Earth is a system in near equilibrium, irradiated by the Sun. if you think that the average temperature fluctuates, where does the heat go? Bear in mind that tiny differences in global average temperatures represent vast amounts of heat simply because the masses are equally enormous.

You aren't making sense. Assuming external validity - which was what I questioned - the IPCC seems pretty convinced that there are indeed fluctuations. Assuming no external validity, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

[Joel]

Planet Earth is a system in near equilibrium, irradiated by the Sun. if you think that the average temperature fluctuates, where does the heat go? Bear in mind that tiny differences in global average temperatures represent vast amounts of heat simply because the masses are equally enormous.

What about specific heat?
If you have, say, lead and helium in a chamber, with a constant amount of heat in the chamber, you could have a widely varying measure of average temperature by varying the distribution of heat.

E.g. if you start off with warm helium and cold lead (same mass of each) the average temperature of the two will rise as heat flows from the helium to the lead--because the rise in lead temperature will be much greater than the fall in helium temperature. While the chamber's average temperature is rising, it could also at the same time be losing heat to its surroundings. How meaningful would it be to say "the chamber's" temperature is rising while it is losing heat?


Also the average temperature is not of the whole planet, but part of it (e.g. ground-level measures of air temperature?). With different distributions of heat, the lower-atmosphere temperature could vary, with the Planet Earth having the same amount of heat.

[oxmixmudd]

The average temperature on the moon is around 10F

Yes, which tells you, coupled with its distance from the sun, that it has little to no atmosphere. And if that average were measured to change over time it woukd tell you that something is changing, given littke to no atmosphere, either total solar insolation, or its albedo.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

What about specific heat?
If you have, say, lead and helium in a chamber, with a constant amount of heat in the chamber, you could have a widely varying measure of average temperature by varying the distribution of heat.

E.g. if you start off with warm helium and cold lead (same mass of each) the average temperature of the two will rise as heat flows from the helium to the lead--because the rise in lead temperature will be much greater than the fall in helium temperature. While the chamber's average temperature is rising, it could also at the same time be losing heat to its surroundings. How meaningful would it be to say "the chamber's" temperature is rising while it is losing heat?


Also the average temperature is not of the whole planet, but part of it (e.g. ground-level measures of air temperature?). With different distributions of heat, the lower-atmosphere temperature could vary, with the Planet Earth having the same amount of heat.

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


Jim

[rogue06]

00000000000000aab.jpg

[firstfloor]

You aren't making sense. Assuming external validity - which was what I questioned - the IPCC seems pretty convinced that there are indeed fluctuations. Assuming no external validity, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

There is an overall energy balance and the system will adjust its equilibrium ‘temperature’ as circumstances demand. So, the atmosphere is like an insulating blanket and the surface of the earth has to be hotter than it would otherwise be, without an atmosphere, so that this energy balance in maintained. Now, if you change the insulating properties of the atmosphere, make it more insulating by the addition of ‘greenhouse’ gases, the surface temperature has to increase to reach the new equilibrium.

Predicting surface temperatures is difficult because of the complexity of the earth’s surface and the dynamics of the atmosphere and the oceans. Measurements are subject to all sorts of potential errors and difficulties but they are good enough to bear witness to the predicted trends. To make sense of the details you need to grasp the fundamentals, and that is understanding how the atmosphere works as insulation. That part is not controversial and it tells you unambiguously that the biosphere must be warming.

[lilpixieofterror]

Planet Earth is a system in near equilibrium, irradiated by the Sun. if you think that the average temperature fluctuates, where does the heat go? Bear in mind that tiny differences in global average temperatures represent vast amounts of heat simply because the masses are equally enormous.

That’s pretty dumb FF considering that earth has had extremes hot periods where there was little to no glaciers and extreme cold periods were it is possible the entire planet was covered in ice. You should know how the oceans carry heat across the planet via ocean currents and how the jet streams do it via the atmosphere and some predictions do say global warming could be responsible for ice ages since some theories suggest global warming can change up the ocean currents and jet streams leading to wider temp extremes between the tropics and the poles.

[oxmixmudd]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39378[/ATTACH]

Rogue, you are smarter than this.

Jim

[rogue06]

Rogue, you are smarter than this.

Jim

Did you check your sense of humor at the door?

[NorrinRadd]

Did you check your sense of humor at the door?

One of the surest diagnostic criteria for TDS is the destruction of the humor center of the brain.

[oxmixmudd]

Right... that must be why a significant number of scientists and statisticians reject the global warming hypothesis, and the "consensus" is a load of crap.

An 'insignificant percentage of scientists' is the correct assessment. If there are 1,000,000 scientists competent and informed about the data, and there are 1000 that disagree for various reasons, then you are still talking about 0.1%

You can find .1% of any population that holds a contrarian opinion. It's just human nature MM

The test is can this tiny percentage make a valid scientific case for their contrarian views that can persuade some significant subset of the other 99.9% on its scientific soundness and robustness. And the answer is no.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

Measurements are subject to all sorts of potential errors and difficulties but they are good enough to bear witness to the predicted trends.

Especially when they are arbitrarily "adjusted" to align with the preferred hypothesis!

[oxmixmudd]

Did you check your sense of humor at the door?

It isnt funny when you support and encourage ignorance. You are supporting MM's and others on this website ignorant buy in to the idea the temperature data and the incontrovertible warming signal it contains is invalid. Is that your intent - to encourage people in their ignorance?

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Especially when they are arbitrarily "adjusted" to align with the preferred hypothesis!

That isn't what is happening MM.

First, a significant warming signal exists in the raw data - unadjusted.

Second, the same signal exists in the adjusted USHCN as exists in the unadjusted USCRN.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...H-D-14-00172.1

from the above:

USHCN vs USCRN.jpeg

MM - grow up and learn about what the actual data is before you say stupid things that mislead others.


Jim