“THE greatest difficulty facing the promoters of the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause dangerous global warming is the inconvenient truth that it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface by any known technology. Without this information it is not possible to claim global warming” writes Vincent Gray in his most recent ‘Truth Newsletter’.
The newsletter continues with an explanation of how a mean global surface temperature anomaly was calculated, and then switches to compare output from General Circulation Models (GCMs) with an all together different method of calculating a global mean temperature using microwave sounders…
“In order to fake this claim the Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record
(MGSTAR) was fabricated from temperature measurements made at meteorological weather
stations.
It did not matter that
· There is no standardized method for making these observations,
· They are unrepresentative of the earth’s surface,and worse the further back you go.
· Their locations are mainly close to cities,
· Only maximum and minimum temperatures are measured,,
· The number and location of stations changes daily
Despite these disabilities, which would have killed the idea in the days when genuine scientists controlled the scientific journals, the public have been persuaded that this dubious procedure is a genuine guide to global temperature change. They even seem to accept that a change in it over a century of a few decimals of a degree is cause for alarm.
John Christy and Roy Spencer in 1979 at the University of Huntsville, Alabama established an alternative procedure for plotting global temperature anomalies in the lower troposphere by using the changes in the microwave spectrum of oxygen recorded by satellites on Microwave Sounder Units (MSUs). This overcame several of the disadvantages of the MGSTAR method.
It is almost truly global, not confined to cities. Although it misses the Arctic, this is also true of the MGSTAR. There have been some problems of calibration and reliability but they are far less than the problems of the MSGTAR record. They are therefore more reliable.
From the beginning the two records have disagreed with one another. This created such panic that the supporters of the IPCC set up an alternative facility to monitor the results at Remote Sensing Systems under the aegis of NASA and in the capable hands of Frank Wentz, an IPCC supporter. It was confidently believed that the ‘errors’ of Christy and Spencer would soon be removed. To their profound disappointment this has not happened, The RSS version of the Lower Troposphere global temperature anomaly record is essentially the same as that still provided by the University of Huntsville. It is also almost the same as the measurements made by radiosonde balloons over the same period.
The MSU record has now been going for 34 years. Spencer has recently published a
comparison between temperature predictions made by a large number of IPCC climate
models and their projected future and the temperature record as shown by the MSUs
and the balloons.
at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
It is surely obvious that all the models are wrong and that their projections are
nonsensical.
I might also add that the central line is also meaningless.
Vincent Gray
Wellington
New Zealand”
Click on the graph for a better, much larger view…
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
More recycled drivel from Gray (and gee an expert reviewer too) http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1979
Gee for being so baaaddd why are they so correlated.
Of course ground measurements and satellite measurements not exactly estimates of the same thing. And be careful the satellite are based on – gasp choke – models too. As if there are no errors or issues with the satellite data – sensor drift, orbital decay, multiple platforms, not 100% global, measuring where in the atmosphere exactly – UAH a pretentious faux sceptic “golden standard”
Don’t you love the sophistic jibe “not confined to CITIES”. ROFL. Vincent just slips that in.
And the locations change daily do they – woo hoo. Tin hat time.
Must be a low news day for NZ sceptics to recycle an oldie.
Luke, I’m trying to figure out whether I should laugh, or cry, over your problem with reality; the later, I suspect as you deaf-inn-ate-lee need help.
I think the point is: No one knows – and I’m very confident in making this assertion – what the average global temperature means, let alone how to calculate it, or to what purpose it may be used. As far as I think, and would think millions, if not billions of others, too, ‘to be warm’ is whole lot better – in all respects – than ‘being cold’.
Well I’m laughing coz this “thing” that you can’t measure is the subject to all manner of sceptic nonsense and happens to look very like the MSU wiggles. Funny that – hahahahaha
And sceptics also know whether the planet is warming or cooling – in fact we’re now assured it’s paused. But you’re assuring me we don’t know that? So are you mate stalking drivel or what? Can’t have it both ways.
Luke, what is the “thing that you can’t … measure”?
As for your use of the Royal prerogative, I would say, also, that ‘we’ don’t know whether the planet is warming or cooling, certainly not to any degree of statistically significance, which is clearly evidenced when actual data is stuffed into those you-beaut-climate-models; and that really makes me laugh, too, fair dinkum.
Don’t be a dope luke; you know about this formula:
A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4
The rationale for it is from this neglected paper:
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf
“[6] At its most tightly coupled, T is the radiative temperature
of the Earth, in the sense that a portion of the radiation
emitted at the top of the atmosphere originates at the Earth’s
surface. However, the outgoing longwave radiation is proportional
to T4. A 1C increase in the polar latitudes in
the winter, for example, would have much less of an effect
on the change of longwave emission than a 1C increase
in the tropics. The spatial distribution matters, whereas
equation (1) ignores the consequences of this assumption.
A more appropriate measure of radiatively significant surface
changes would be to evaluate the change of the global
average of T4.”
The AGW GMST is incorrect because it does not allow for this effect, that is: (A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4); GMST can increase but the ERB need not change; conversely, the ERB can vary but the GMST temperature stay the same. Given this how can you measure the greenhouse effect let alone increases in it?
Answer that luke then we can revisit Essex et al and the question of “Does a Global Temperature Exist?”
Ah back to normal – John Sayers will be so pleased.
Of course it’s “we” – as opposed to you lot of nitwits.
Cohenite bluffs with some diversionary material from pretend sceptic-land. I don’t mind if you tell me the satellite records are wrong Cohenite – which is it? I don’t mind if you try the ^4 scam – gee I wonder if they thought of that. Oh darn we knew we missed something. If only we’d had Cohenite on the team.
what was it Keating said about dogs returning to their vomit
zzzzzzzzz
If they are so confident about their temp record, why do they need to spend so much time nudging the earlier record down after fifty or sixty years?
Also why did Phil Jones famously reply to Warick Hughes, “the only reason you want the data is to see if you can find something wrong with it”?
A real supremely confident attitude from the UK’s top climate scientist, SARC. What a mob of desperate con merchants these fools are?
I see Labor and Luke’s C commission donkeys think that there is a 50/50 chance that humans will be extinct by 2100.
This means that unless we do SOMETHING????? in the next 7 years the human race’s future hangs by one toss of a coin thread.
Yet this fool has the hide to come on here and claim that we are the side that ignores science etc.
So tell us Luke what was the population of humans in the midst of the last glacial? Don’t forget our pop at present is 7+ billion, yet your donkeys think all these people could be dead in just 87 years.
So tell us how this could happen, what is the mechanism or driver to achieve the CC’s prediction? Is it GAIA’s new brain or Hansen’s boiling oceans or coal trains of death or etc? What?
Ha, did luke link to Steffan and Flannery and co at the CC!?
Talk about desperate and dateless; if those guys were horses they would be at the knackery and there would a Steward’s enquiry bigger than the fine cotton affair.
Anyway, the evidence is in; AGW is a jip: The 10 reasons why man-made global warming is wrong:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/man-made-global-warming-wrong-ten.html
Pity Steffan and his bodgie mates can’t put some equivalent evidence together.
Phil Jones – was dead right – who’d want to help someone like Hughes. His agenda always most clear. He’s just a basher. Why doesn’t he go back to NZ attend to sheep?
“yet your donkeys think all these people could be dead in just 87 years.” well are we there yet? And with 7B people wouldn’t want too much climate shifts would ya? How’s your Mandarin by the way. But anyway a bit total more lying fabrication by fraudster Neville. “Boiling oceans” wreally ! do go on. Is that in an IPCC report?
Incidentally if it’s all over for AGW why are you all still here – shouldn’t be out curing malaria, AIDS or TB? Sooking is easier isn’t it. Don’t worry Abbott will be in soon and sacking everyone – the dispossessed will probably be climbing in your window to knick $20 but then you can shoot them with your collection of semi-autos. Or perhaps you can watch on reality TV while the navy torpedo refugee boats with those fleeing from all the wars you lot have started. And how are your local tea party chapters going?
Comrade Luke it won’t be so bad under Abbott, but obviously there is concern that the ALP might wander the wilderness for 20 years.
The only chance of clawing back lost voters is for the PM and Rudd to walk away from the top job … leaving the position open to new contenders.
Even this close to an election the right person could heal the wounds and unify the troops for the battle ahead.
I never thought I’d have to say this, but Luke, you are now raving!
Wonder why?
Is the ideological ground shifting under your feet?
“the dispossessed will probably be climbing in your window to knick $20 but then you can shoot them with your collection of semi-autos.”
I saw a movie once about the possessed climbing through windows; they weren’t after $20 and you had to shoot them in the head otherwise they eat you.
Eat the rich, I say!
Abbott, Abbott, Abbott, believe me Luke I prefer anyone but him or the banker as a the leader myself.
But he’s all we got and I think you will be pleasantly surprised while I resign myself to what’s to come. All I can say in his favour is that he is not as bad as the one he is going to replace.
YUK Lukey is getting sillier by the month, if that’s possible. Sorry Luke but I don’t own any guns, never saw the need for them.
I notice you can’t answer my questions or comment on Coher’s excellent 10 reasons list. BTW Hansen’s boiling oceans is his own quote not mine.
Ditto coal trains of death and Tim’s GAIA brain flummery. But it seems you really think the human race may not be around by 2100?
Real sane coherant thinker our Luke. So tell us why this will be the case?
I hoped Lukie might have gone to Singapore for the fresh air and to savour those clean, green, carbon-pollution-er-credit, bio-diesel projects that even Greenpeace admits is crazy.
How to wipe out the world to save 0.0c:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345615/Acrid-smoke-smell-burning-vegetation-plagues-Singapore-worst-case-pollution-Indonesia-plans-water-bombing-operation-distinguish-forest-fires.html
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/forests/palm-oil
But maybe even Luke could pass for sane in today’s world:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/130618-0002.htm#130618112000114
CO2 does not cause global warming, apparently.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/19706
Johnathon – don’t swing at my wide balls. But lots driving around Qld with number plate stickers saying “don’t blame me – I’d did not vote for Newman”. Will be the same for Abbott when buyer’s regret sets in.
I’m voting for Clive myself !
But back to the thread instead of random AGW sooking – don’t you lot find how well the surface temperature series matches the MSU record time series? (alternatively bring up heaps of diversionary gunk)
errr “find it interesting”
Lukes gunna vote for Clive. Very consistent Lukey, I see he’s signing up religious fundamentalists in WA to stand for the party. I now understand his attraction for you.
BTW Labor’s primary vote has dropped again in tomorrows Newspoll and Abbott has pulled further ahead in preferred PM stakes.
Thanks for that link El Gordo. From it I linked to a post from Willis Eschenbach- WUWT 2009.
He covers emails between Trenberth, Phil Jones and a Prof Karlen.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/ I hope somebody can have a look at this post because it seems to find discrepancies in the temp record that Trenberth and Jones (for all their Gobblydedook) don’t answer.
At the end Jones is completely wrong ( or lying or incompetent) when he claims that a particular temp trend includes SST.
Willis shows it doesn’t include SST at all. Prof Karlen shows that they use numerous cities that have a substantial UHIE and this is the reason for the warming.
Australia temp trend gets a mention by Karlen as well and he doesn’t seem to be very impressed. But really how can anyone trust the likes of Jones etc when you look at their track record?
Boris Johnson turns sceptic. They should be chucked in the deep end.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10138096/The-weather-prophets-should-be-chucked-in-the-deep-end.html?placement=mid2
Just unpublished blog crap Neviile. You’d believe anything. “But I read it on the intertubes at a disinformation site” bleats Neville. “I couldn’t think for myself so I let someone else do it for me”. Baaa baaa baaa baaa.
Beneath Neville’s latest citation – classy journal Nev. About your standard.
More from The Telegraph
Why are women going to oral sex lessons? 21 Jun 2013
‘We don’t have sex anymore’ 21 Jun 2013
Pippa Middleton is ‘persuaded’ by Buckingham Palace to sit out tennis… 18 Jun 2013
Couple jailed after letting 40 teens film them having sex in public 14 Jun 2013
12 good reasons to scrap the Met Office 14 Jun 2013
Here is Wet Blanket Larry’s take on the first sentence of this blog post.
“THE greatest difficulty facing the promoters of the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause dangerous global warming is the inconvenient truth that it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface by any known technology.”
Surprise, surprise! It is VERY possible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface with present technology. However when looking at trends, short time scales may be problematic. I hope that the feathers are fresh, and that the tar is nice and warm. But please allow me to explain first.
My academic background is in analytical chemistry, which is concerned with instrumental methods for making measurements of chemical concentrations. More than anyone else on this board, I understand what a measurement is. That said …
First, there’s no such thing as an EXACT measurement. Or an “exact science,” for that matter. Why not? It’s elementary, my dear Watson.
Given sufficient readout resolution on an electronic instrument, 10 measurements of “the same thing” will ALWAYS yield 10 different results. Which one of them is the “true value?” Answer: None of the above. Even if there are no systematic errors–aka method errors–there is ALWAYS random error in any kind of measurement. In this respect, measuring is distinct from counting, which in principle, can be exact.
Second: Using signal averaging, we can whittle down the brackets of random error to whatever extent we wish. Specifically, the Standard Error of the Mean (a statistical index of the measurement uncertainty of the average contributed by random error) is inversely proportional to the square root of the sample size.
And yes, Luke. Random error applies to the UAH satellite data as well.
An average temperature of the Earth’s surface can be estimated from reasonable WEIGHTED temperature readings from surface stations. Why weighted? Because some surface stations are closer together, and others are further apart. As I’ve already pointed out, each of these readings has a random error associated with it, and possibly a method error as well.
In addition, there’s the problem of fraud. GISS and NOAA are notorious for cooling the past, in order to massage the data to jibe with the foregone conclusion. For example, the 1934 average temperature of the contiguous USA is revised downward every few years. And notwithstanding the late John Daly, the RAW data from INDIVIDUAL temperature stations is guarded as a National Security secret. Why?
Because we Great Unwashed aren’t supposed to know that this year was toastier than anything that we experienced during the “unprecedented” albeit defunct Globally Warming episode that lasted from 1979 to 1998. The official BS excuse is a euphemism, called “Time of Observation Bias.”
And Constance Millar’s dendro climate study for the year 1350 in California’s Southern Sierras would be burn-the-heretic-at-the-stake material if it wasn’t published on a government website. Officially, the well-ducumented Medieval Warm Period never happened. Now let’s put Political Correctness aside.
It’s theoretically possible that the noise level for an average signal for an arbitrarily chosen time interval is comparable with the magnitude of the signal itself. In this case, it would be reasonable to question the validity of the signal. And yes, this issue has come up in climate “studies.”
I am NOT saying that there are zero problems with the temperature data, or with the algorithms that are used for averaging the data. So what? The existence of these problems is not necessarily a conversation stopper.
My main point is this: Long-term temperature averaging CAN be meaningful. Those who claim otherwise are just repeating an unexamined slogan. And the emotional projection behind the vacuous meme is supposed to make it self-evident.
You all might be interested in the results of the super moon’s effect on the king tide last night.
Last night’s tide on the Gold Coast was 1 centimetre lower than tonight’s tide prediction but it was still a cracker of a tide.
IT WAS 5 MILLIMETRES ABOVE the king tide datum of the 1950s at points adjacent to the Seaway entrance.
We used to often get king tides 50 years ago that were a couple of inches above this datum so even if tonight’s tide is a centimetre or two higher it will only be matching the old tides.
Move along, move along, no SLR to see here.
I thought I’d let the ABC know the good news but somehow they didn’t seem to want to.
Just as the MSM don’t want to know that the smoke pollution in Singapore is the result of mindless, failed, green schemes.
The loonies are now measuring heat in Hiroshama bomb equivalents.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/climate-scientists-move-to-atom-bomb-number-system-give-up-on-exponentials/#comments
More fraud extortion and corruption involved in the co2 markets. Lukey will be pleased.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/23/cfc-climate-bomb/#more-12005
I’ve said it before but Ponzi and Madoff were just amateurs compared to the mafia, a number of EU countries , Chinese con men etc when it comes to co2 credits fraud and corruption.
O/T addition to the earlier Bee thread.
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/06/pesticide_confirmed_in_bee_dea.html#/0
Hey Larry,
Thanks for all this information.
1. Can you give us more info on how exactly the average temperature of the earth’s surface should be measured and if there are any reliable measurements back how far?
Also I would like more info on your comment,
2. “And notwithstanding the late John Daly, the RAW data from INDIVIDUAL temperature stations is guarded as a National Security secret. Why?”
Indeed this information is available for Australia and shows the late 1920s to have, for the most part, to have been warmer than recent decades at individual sites.
But what is the situation in the US. What data is and isn’t available.
3. If you would like to put all or some of this information together it would make a nice post – especially your answer to part 1… how to get a meaningful average global temp.
Hi Jennifer,
Thanks for the tough questions. How should the average temperature of the Earth be measured? First, the powers that be should follow their own guidelines about placement of temperature stations. Anthony Watts has documented this stuff in his project, surfacestations.org. For example, the temperature stations should not be placed directly outside air conditioning units, or in paved parking lots. These give artificially inflated readings during hot Summer months.
The number of temperature stations used in calculating average temperatures in the USA should remain constant over time. Instead this number has been declining. Anthony calls this phenomenon the great dying of thermometers. Typically over time, the well-sited stations are deleted from the averaging calculations.
On the other hand, sites at large airports are usually retained. The tarmacs and jet engine exhausts give significant heat island effects. Nevertheless the airport stations are classified as rural sites.
“See, this proves that there’s no UHI effect, after all. Aren’t we wonderful.” Yeah, right.
About reliable measurements … I can state with reasonable confidence that the Earth’s average surface temperature 25000 years ago–during the last major advance of continental glaciers–was appreciably less than it is now. It’s difficult to know the exact numbers. We can arrive at reasonable albeit rough estimates with isotopic, pollen, and other proxies. But not all proxies are created equal.
Arctic sea ice extent is not the greatest proxy, because it reflects North wind more than small temperature changes.
Ditto for tree ring data from Bristlecone Pines, of which Mikey Mann is so fond. These trees live in the mountains of the arid Basin and Range region of the Western USA. These tree ring widths reflect highly variable precip more than temperature.
It’s difficult to draw lines to separate what’s reliable from what’s not. Especially when the uncertainties are unknown, or unknowable, or when they swamp out the actual signals.
Instead physical scientists have a convention that’s honored more in the breach than in the observance. Whenever you report a meaurement, you should also report an estimate of the uncertainty for that measurement. However this is inconvenient for some data tables. In order to deal with this problem, I’ve invented two techniques: one that’s fairly pedestrian (published a long time ago in Anal Chem, the top journal in my field), and another one, which uses a novel hybrid number system that has two types of zero (published in an obscure journal that probably doesn’t exist anymore).
About data that is and isn’t available in the USA … My understanding is that some averages are available. These include raw data averages from sites that are increasingly cherry-picked over time. These also include average adjustments, based upon putative TOB (time of observation bias). Estimated TOB is almost a linear function of time. Whodathunk it?
Shortly before his death, John Daly captured some of the online American raw data in 1999. The Big Lie scare campaign, with its attendant data hiding, drastically ramped up in the year 2000.
The available undiddled temperature data show that the Dust Bowl years, especially 1934, were the among the hottest on record for the contiguous USA. Ditto for 1921.
This year is the centennial of the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth. It was 134°F in California’s well-named Death Valley National Park. Eat your hearts out, residents of Marble Bar, WA!
And Dr Millar’s study shows that the year 1350 was considerably toastier than “unprecedented” 1990s in California’s Southern Sierras.
The upshot: The existence of unethical scientific practices used in estimating average global temperature trends do NOT prove the impossibility of valid scientific studies on the same subject. Moreover measurement uncertainty is a basic fact of life in the physical sciences; it is not a conversation stopper.
I hope that I’ve answered your questions. BTW, I’m pleased to learn that Australia currently has more climate history glasnost than my country.
The benchmark for the fallacy of a global mean standard temperature [GMST] is still Essex, McKitrick and Andressen:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
>>How should the average temperature of the Earth be measured?<<
I have been thinking on that for a while and I think the homogenisation/anomaly method has a major flaw – and that is because the anomalies are all measured in degrees C. Why?
Some sites have larger min/max temp variability than other: lesser variability because they are near the sea, or near a heat sink, or critically nearer to the poles. And when a temperature from a high variability site is used to adjust a missing temp (or an unexpected temp) of a low variability site, then you may have an unreasonably high (low) temp substituted.
I may be spinning my wheels here and going no where… But I reckon that any homogenization adjustments should be done on the basis of std deviation (rather than simply degrees C as it appears to be done in the temp data-sets).
To belabour the point – if you have two sites and the temp at one site A (min/max) is 0-20c and a nearby site B is (5-15C), then if there is a datum missing at site B, then if the temp at site A was 20C then that temp can't be used to adjust the temp @ site B. Determining the std deviation at each site and using an adjustement based on std deviation (and converting that to temps) would avoid a lot of issues…
Now – this works both ways obviously … But if you have a warming trend, then the warming trend would be magnified.
Arnost, the problems you discuss were treated in this paper by Stockwell and Stewart:
http://landshape.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/06-Stockwell%5B1%5D.pdf
Thanks… Interesting!
New study on glaciers from Norway finds that the greatest advance was during the LIA. The maximum retreat was during the Holocene climate optimum.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/new-paper-finds-norway-glaciers-much.html
Lomborg mentions this fact about maximum advance of glaciers during the LIA in his book ” Cool It”.
The graphs shown have an inverse depiction as shown at top left on first graph. Amazing that we find a slight warming from the coldest period of the holocene of perhaps 0.8c since 1850 is unusual or unprecedented.
An interesting result SD. Especially in light of the graphic in the Climate Commissions latest publication.
This graphic shows why we should fear SLR – that is, storm surges sitting on top of high tides are sitting on top of a higher ‘base level’ high tide now than say 50 years ago. One would presume the same must apply to say King Tides? Or put another way, should not the King Tides reflect the higher base level we now have?
Yes Graeme, they should if you believed the CC.
It is interesting that our recent winter king tide periods have coincided with lows and big rainfall/storms off the NNSW coast which would have influenced SLs upward to some degree yet there is still nothing record breaking in their outcomes.
Last night’s king tide was, as predicted, about 1 cm higher and therefore the HAT for the year but still within the bounds of 50/60 years ago.
And the highest measured storm surge in Moreton Bay is still a 1930s cyclone.
By the way – the link should have the “1” in [ ] sq brackets if it’s to work.
http://landshape.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/06-Stockwell%5B1%5D.pdf
Thx for your observations SD, as always intersting
Comment from: cohenite June 24th, 2013 at 7:20 pm
“The benchmark for the fallacy of a global mean standard temperature [GMST] is still Essex, McKitrick and Andressen:”
In the past, you’ve done a great job keeping up with the AGW mythology, and with the debunking thereof. However I feel that you’re way out of your depth on this one. Naked link dropping does not qualify as intelligent discussion. And neither does your apparent playing of the Settled Science card. That second gambit, by the way, is straight out of Big Al’s playbook.
I’m not motivated to check out that particular link. I’m not asking for a detailed summary. But if you had written a short paragraph that mentioned the most important point, I’d have taken it seriously. I tend to ignore Argument from Authority.
We both agree that scientific fraud exists–especially in this politically charged arena. But when REAL scientists wear their scientists’ hats, they always tell the bloody truth–warts and all.
I’ve already mentioned the two flavors of measurement uncertainty. (This includes the special case in which the noise level drowns out the signal that you’re trying to measure.) They are part and parcel of the scientific process. In no way, does their existence invalidate the concept of a GMST. Now I’ll put the monkey on your back.
Suppose that the No Such Agency in the USA had diverted half of its black budget–from illegal spying on law abiding citizens, to climate monitoring. Suppose further that they had put a vast network of temperature stations at intervals no greater than 20 miles apart over the entire planet. And yes, this would include temperature stations on small ships to cover the 70% of the Earth’s surface that’s open ocean.
It would also include a temperature station on an amphibious vessel/vehicle for the North Pole. This would cover both bases for the geographic pole: the iceberg scenario and the open ocean scenario.
All of the stations would be manned by self-avowed AGW skeptics, which would cut way down on the cheating.
Why would an average temperature taken from all of these sources be meaningless?
For whatever it’s worth, most people, including those who fancy themselves to be Freethinkers, short-circuit the analytical process, and rely on BS opinion leaders and overrated ‘expert’ witnesses to do the hard thinking for them. Go ahead, make my day. Prove that you’re a Freethinker. Tell me something that I don’t already know. Please, just one itty-bitty, information-dense paragraph.
But Psychic Larry plays the odds. He predicts that you won’t, because you can’t. He also predicts that you’ll attempt to change the subject, or to engage in more naked link dropping, rather than answering my simple question.
Ah Luke, clearly it’s you who loves the biffo. Bet you were crawling over the screen tonight.
I suppose we have to wait for the return to sanity in our media now the red Queen is dead
Valid calculations will only come from valid analysis of natural climate cycles. We will experience slight cooling until 2028, then 30 years of warming by about half a degree. Big deal!
Let’s consider some facts. Is the Arctic warming? Yes, like everywhere else, with a long-term trend for 500 years rising out of the Little Ice Age at the rate of about half a degree per century, due to turn to cooling at least within 200 years. But is there a hockey stick? No.
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2865/xkbx.jpg
In fact the Arctic is no hotter than it was in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s.
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5030/pso0.jpg
Is there a super-imposed 60 year natural cycle that caused all the alarm during the 30 years of rising prior to 1998? Yes.
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2496/otc3.png
But it’s all natural – every bit of it. And it’s nothing whatsoever to do with carbon dioxide, radiative forcing, back radiation, greenhouse effects or any such travesties of physics.
Larry you make some very interesting points. currently a mean global temp number is pretty meaningless because of a variety of reasons you discuss ( but potentially you say this could be fixed by having a vast number of sites manned by “true sceptics”….hugely expensive and unrealistic, but your point is potentially valid) . Personally I have a problem with the numbers because the error factors from each station and for the global mean are very likely greater than the actual change being measured….so how could this number have any real meaning? I am no statistician and standard deviations are no strength of mine. But it is reasonable to adjust temperature data for a variety of reasons ( I just dont like how they always seem to be ‘up’ lately and ‘down’ in the past to exacerbate the trend {they wouldnt do that would they!haha}.
I recall john daly writing about this in relation to topex data http://www.john-daly.com/altimetry/topex.htm. he provides a lovely example of measurements from london to new york “How many stages of statistical averaging can take place from a body of raw data before the statistical output becomes hopelessly decoupled from the raw data which creates it?”
so given your scenario i would still be sceptical of the “mean” because of measurement error and th required statistical averaging?
I hope I have said that in comprehensible way?
Hi toby,
Thanks for responding. Your point about signal-to-noise ratio (even though you didn’t call it by that name) is spot-on for the short term. The longer term is a different story. According to climate cycle boffins, we’re due to for another major advance of continental glaciers–aka an “Ice Age”–some time within the next 2000 years.
If we continue taking various kinds of “meaningless” climate-related measurements, and put ALL of the undiddled raw data online, the eventual downward trend will become obvious even to the Vincent Grays of this world. That will happen well before the frozen fit hits the shan. And the early heads-up will buy everyone some valuable time to prepare for the inevitable.
BTW, your charming backwater continent will become very attractive to panic-stricken snowbirds from the UK and N Europe. But that boat is nearly full already.
I’d like to say a bit more about Vincent’s Gray logic, in connection with a water management issue that Jennifer has written about. There’s political controversy (albeit considerably less scientific controversy) about the history of the Lower Lakes. Dishonest and uninformed politicos claim that the Lower Lakes had a mostly freshwater history, before we ‘evil’ humans arrived on the scene. And that’s the main official rationale for the barrages.
By way of contrast, Jennifer mentions research on the remains of microorganisms–called Foraminifera–in the sediments there. Keying the identities of these various beasties supports the hypothesis that the LLs have had a very mixed and Politically Incorrect salinity history. Hey politicians! Can you say, “estuary?”
Unfortunately, there are two flies in the ointment. First, the sediment studies involved proxies. Horrors! We really should have recruited Dr Who, his Tardis, and his long scarf to travel back a wee bit in time, to measure the salinity directly.
Moreover there was sampling error. They did not examine samples from every square meter of the lake bottoms. When I apply my imperfect mortal understanding of Vincent’s Gray logic, I find that the studies are absolutely meaningless.
Nice try, Jennifer. And nice try, principal investigators. Back to the drawing board. And no soup for you! The inerrant precepts of His Grayness trump everything else.
Following his sterling example, all environmental blog posts should be nuance-free zones. Catchy slogans too! If you disagree with someone, dismiss his claims as meaningless. That’s real highbrow stuff.
Now where can I get a good Vincent Gray T-shirt and coffee mug? I’ll skip the tattoo for now.
Little Lukie states:
“But back to the thread instead of random AGW sooking – don’t you lot find how well the surface temperature series matches the MSU record time series? (alternatively bring up heaps of diversionary gunk)”
Yes, back to the IPCC CLAIMS of AGW. I notice you haven’t mentioned the HOT SPOT lately Little Lukie. Unfortunately for you most of those Climate Models, especially the ones showing warming, all have it!! As IT is about twice the warming rate of the surface, and IT should have been occurring for the last 30-40 years, I leave it to you to decide why we have decided the models are garbage and you are a joke!!!
Yup, those close matches are really great Little Lukey, for us DENIERS!!!
Then there are the numerous papers which have compared the model runs used by the IPCC against real world features such as SST’s, precipitation, ice cover… Most of what the models show are NOT close to the real world. Those models may be great, but, they must be modeling some other string than the one we occupy!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA