jennifermarohasy.com/blog - The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:

Subscribe

 

November 2008
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Tags

Archives

Authors

Site search

Miniposts 0.6.5

Dugong Slaughter Suspended
Good news! Traditional hunters have agreed to suspend the hunting of dugongs and turtles in North Queensland. More here. (5)

Rested Tassie scallop beds produce no juveniles
Rather than rejuvenating the scallop bed, closure just let scallops die of old age.  More here (0)

Invasive Carp in the US
Voltage coursing through electrical barriers designed to keep invasive Asian carp out of the Great Lakes may need to be raised to keep out juvenile fish, U.S. officials said on Friday.   Read more here. (1)

Bill Kininmonth on TV
Bill Kininmonth speaks with Kerri-anne from Channel 9 about climate change and nuclear energy… click here. (2)

Why Action on AGW
LABOR must win back voters lost to the Greens by advocating stronger action on climate change and supporting gay marriage, according to a secret internal review of the party’s performance that also urges the government to do more to court votes in immigrant communities.   The Australian. (1)

Advertisement

Links

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

The Absurdity of a Reliable Average Global Surface Temperature

ACCURATELY recording the temperature of a body that is not in equilibrium can be complicated.  Recording the average surface temperature of the earth reliably, and with such accuracy that one can know with certainty that there has been a less than one degree Celsius change over one hundred years, probably impossible. 

Dr Vincent Gray explains why, and begins at the very beginning with an explanation of “temperature” and how it is measured:

TEMPERATURE is one of the six basic units of the SI (Metric) system, but is the least understood  and most mysterious of all of them.

It originally arose as a method of assessing heat level, which could be measured by the change in length of a liquid inside a glass capillary. The scale was divided into a number of equal units between “fixed” points.

In 1724, Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit chose three fixed points. Zero was the temperature of a mixture of ice, water and ammonium chloride, which he considered to represent the lowest possible temperature on the earth’s surface (he was wrong). Then he chose the melting point of ice as 32 degrees, which meant the boiling point of water was 212 degrees. It is amazing that this cumbersome and inconvenient system survived for so long, and is still used in the USA.

In 1742, the Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius devised a temperature scale based only on the melting and boiling point of water, with the movement of a liquid in a glass capillary divided into 100 degrees. He took boiling point as zero and the melting point as 100.  Celsius originally called his scale centigrade derived from the Latin for “hundred steps”. For years it was simply referred to as “the Swedish thermometer”. 

The scale was later reversed by Carolus Linnaeus in 1745, a year after Celsius’s death, to how it is today. I was personally rather surprised when the name “Centigrade’ was changed to “Celsius” as it seemed to involve a reversal of the scale, but fortunately, did not.

A better understanding of temperature was a result of the development of the science of thermodynamics in the middle of the 19th century. It was realised that different forms of energy were equivalent, and were interconvertable, at least in their ultimate conversion to heat energy.  Heat energy, such as that produced chemically could only be partially converted to mechanical energy because of the necessary operational requirements of engines.

It became evident that mechanical and vibrational energy of atoms and molecules in all substances is the source of heat energy, so that temperature can be related to the average of this energy. Since this energy disappears altogether at the absolute zero the SI temperature scale sets its origin at the absolute zero and calls the scale degrees Kelvin.  On the Celsius scale the absolute zero is -273.15 degrees. This is zero degrees on the Kelvin scale.

According to thermodynamic theory, the temperature of any body can only be defined if that body is in equilibrium, that is to say it is neither receiving energy or losing it. Any body that is not in equilibrium does not have a definable temperature. It is somewhat paradoxical that the rigid definition applies as a result of averaging the many different amounts of mechanical energy within the body but cannot be applied rigorously if there is a variability.

There is nowhere on the earth, or in its atmosphere, where the energy content can be considered to be in equilibrium. In daytime there is usually a rise in energy, at night time, a fall. There are no circumstances where a definite temperature of any part can be defined thermodynamically.

You can, of course, put a measurement instrument close to one part and record the apparent transient temperature. If the measurement is continuous you might even derive some sort of average temperature at that point. But there is no way that one could carry out sufficient measurements, distributed in a representative way, so that any sort of global average temperature could be derived.

The climate scientists connected with the IPCC do, however, claim not only that they have measured average global temperature, but that this has been carried out with such accuracy that an increase of less than one degree Celsius over 100 years could be confidently related to increased emissions of greenhouse gases over the period, rather than to the errors of the measurement.

James Hansen, the pioneer scientist who is credited with having launched this belief in the influence of increasing greenhouse gases and continues to promote it, has admitted publicly, on his website that the measurements are completely unreliable:

When asked what is meant by Surface Air Temperature (SAT) Dr Hansen explains: 

“I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10ft or 50ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest) the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50ft of air either above ground or on top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been adopted. I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.”

When asked what is meant by daily surface air temperature, Dr Hansen explains:

“Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every two hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.”

When asked what the media report when they refer to surface air temperature, Dr Hansen explains:

“The media report the reading of one particular thermometer of a nearby weather station. This temperature may be very different from the true SAT even at that location and has certainly nothing to do with the true regional SAT. To measure the true regional SAT we would have to use many 50ft stacks of thermometers distributed evenly over the whole region, an obvious practical impossibility.”

This rather devastating confession is not even all that can be said. In daytime the surface is warmer than at night time, so that temperatures that are experienced oscillate between two extremes and are hardly ever “average”. Any average is the least probable temperature. This is why meteorologists usually give the daily maximum and minimum rather than the average, since these are the temperatures commonly experienced.

The “temperature anomalies” which form the basis of the “mean annual global temperature anomaly record” are obtained from weather station measurements, only once a day, of the maximum and minimum temperatures of the previous 24 hours.  The number of stations changes over time, the time at which this measurement is taken varies and the actual day is different in different time zones. So-called “corrections” dependent on comparing many neighbouring stations are impossible for most areas. Then the location and influence of surrounding buildings alters over time and is the main reason for a long term upwards bias.

The absence of any scientific justification for the existence of a reliable average global surface temperature is just one of the many absurdities of the assumptions which are made by the basic theory of computer models which assumes that the energy of the earth can be regarded as in equilibrium, with a constant temperature, and sunshine (day and night), and “balanced” with energy coming in equalling that going out. 

Since there is no part of the earth where this “balance” exists, it could not possibly exist on average.

Dr Vincent Gray has been an Expert Reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for eighteen years, that is to say, from the very beginning.  He lives in Wellington, New Zealand.

****************

Hansen, J., 2008a, GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

Advertisement

117 Responses to “The Absurdity of a Reliable Average Global Surface Temperature”

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

  1. Comment from: cohenite


    luke; your link didn’t work, or at least required payment; do you have an abstract?

  2. Comment from: Luke


    http://www.farminstitute.org.au/Blog%20Newsletter/Explanatory_Note has an ENSO index graph (at bottom) which is really his composite PDO index from http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025052.shtml renamed

    That should explain global temperature for the last 400 years…. :-)

  3. Comment from: cohenite


    Thanks; I hadn’t seen either of those; the Franks papers I had are these;

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004WR003845.shtml

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/108562474/abstract

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004WR003234.shtml

    Franks also has agood article on IPO periodicity and rainfall/flood patterns in The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Vol. 21 NO 2, May 2006

  4. Comment from: Luke


    Yep and that’s all good – really no contest with that material. Good stuff.

    Lots of people have been around this PDO/ENSO issue now – oceanographers, hydrologists, coastal scientists, agriculturalists and rangeland scientists

    However issues are – what new science he has left out and not discussed (STR, SAM, EAC); and for yourself whether you can reconcile the temperature record with 400 years of PDO and ENSO.

    You see cycles and pseudo-cycles are tricky things – you think you have a relationship but you really don’t. Which usually why sunspot and rainfall forecasts fall over. Inigo Jones. Beware the ides of cycles…. ooo…. ooooo…

    There’s enough quasi-periodic things going on to con you into believing there are cycles where there are really not.

    So you need – the observations, hopefully oceans and atmosphere, the statistics, a physical climate mechanism (viz a viz magic pixie dust), and hopefully put in back into a climate model which shows it works and you understand the feedbacks ….. ultimate proof.

    But anyway see if you can reconcile the 400 years of PDO with temperature trends. Your grand challenge.

  5. Comment from: Gordon Robertson


    cohenite “Ha, Will, I just realised you say McIntyre at RC; what a Freudian, or should that be Schmidtian, slip”.

    His guilty conscience was at work, realizing McIntyre is not allowed to comment at RC by the broad-minded mathematician, Schmidt. That would be the same Schmidt who completely avoided a direct debate with Lindzen on climate theory. What kind of a scientific blog bans people who disagree with their paradigm? What kind of a person participates in a blog that bans skeptics based on no more than the banned person making a fool out of one of the blog’s contributors using nothing more than mathematics and basic scienctific fact?

  6. Comment from: SJT


    Read this for example.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3218

    Steve is keen to not offend Svalgaard, who obviously has not time at all for Landscheidt and his pseudo science.

  7. Comment from: SJT


    That would be the same Schmidt who completely avoided a direct debate with Lindzen on climate theory.

    Schmidt participated in a very public debate with Lindzen on climate change. Lindzen is the coward, he has come up with his “iris” theory, but made no attempt to prove it in a published scientific paper.

  8. Comment from: kuhnkat


    Eli Rabbett,

    “Of course the key to unlocking this box of worms is that no one measures global temperature, they measure global temperature anomalies, but any expert reviewer knows that.”

    you alledgedly educated Alarmists are so tiring.

    YOU DO NOT MEASURE AN ANOMALY. YOU COMPUTE IT!!!

    By the way, where do you get the readings to compute the anomaly?? Maybe from something called a thermometer that measures temperature, or from a microwave sensor that is calibrated, or…??

    Or, maybe y’all have completely changed over to measuring wind speed and running it through GCM’s to get the temperature to compute the anomaly since it is dropping too much for the GreenHouse theory to scare people anymore??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

  9. Comment from: kuhnkat


    SJT,

    the satellite data and Spencers presentation:

    http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/spencer-ppt.pdf

    appear to be supporting Lindzen over Schmidt, who apparently prefers processing data through his GCM’s to come up with his support!!

  10. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Jennifer,

    ” amazed at the extent to which the UAH, RSS, CRU and until recently GISS have been so similar”.

    Its called consensus underlying policy assumptions. We cannot have government funded quangos contradicting each other, hence the uniformity of outcome.

  11. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    SJT,

    how about some supporting evidence for your assertions posted here, or as an employee of the AGO, this bothersome requirement demanded of the private sector does not apply to you.

  12. Comment from: Luke


    SJT – what could be more satisfying than harpooning kooky chook denialists for the shonks that they are. Well done.

    Interesting you mention the private sector – a few conversations lately with private enterprise associates involved in construction indicates the incredible waste and largess displayed by the greed is good philosophy. The joke mate is that you’re paying for it ! And so am I.

  13. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Lamprey:

    “SJT – what could be more satisfying than harpooning kooky chook denialists for the shonks that they are. Well done.”

    What’s this – a referencio in abstentia?

    Sure you on tha raht thread son?

  14. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Otherwise y’aal be a bit threadbare, yuk, yuk,yuk.

  15. Comment from: Scott


    Graham Young November 20th, 2008 at 11:05 am

    Isn’t Mr Gray making that statement to point out the innaccuracies in measuring temperature and that attributing a one degree increase over 100 years to any one cause is quite difficult?

  16. Comment from: peter c


    can’t you just pick a spot, record the temperatures at fixed times and then just average them out?- ok that’s not the whole globe but the average temperature in Britain does seem to be going up-if there is an average temperature in Britain

  17. Comment from: Inconvenient truth: 'Shrinking' ice actually growing in Antarctica - Science and Technology - Page 3 - City-Data Forum


    [...] had missing stations in Russia. GISS Releases (Suspect) October 2008 Data

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

Leave a Reply