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
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“ACCURATELY recording the temperature of a body that is not in equilibrium can be complicated.”
No, it is not possible, by definition.
Let the obfuscation now begin.
Most students of science and engineering know what is going on is fake but accurate lying.
Gawd and dreary me … “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. ” so much for Vince’s understanding of climate modelling …..
And you have to love this …. “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.” – meaning what ? – he applied for the papers…. LOL (next!)
Any body that is not in equilibrium does not have a definable temperature – is the universe in a state of equilibrium? Clearly not. How, then, is it possible to measure the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation to an accuracy of +-0.001K?
(Comment from: Luke November 19th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Gawd and dreary me,)
Perhaps Luke you might enlighten me as to how T min is rising at twice the rate as T max, does the sun shine at night, or might it be the storage radiator effect commonly known as SRE. Do you warmers actually believe that global temps can be accurately measured to 0.01 of a degree c over 120 years, if you do you are off your trolly.
Luke could you give us the world’,s average telephone number or perhaps the average temperature of the room you are in. Come on admit this is about your belief nothing else. Anything you present is to support what you know to be true. To you bow towards Al Gore ranch as you type.
Gee I wonder how denialists seem to know “the world is cooling” yet any metric of temperature is impossible. We’ve just obsessed about October yet any measure is supposedly meaningless.
And isn’t it strange that UAH, RSS, CRU and GISS all have the same trends wiggles and bumps.
0.01 – hmm something about large numbers …. Rob are you actually kidding mate?
Anyway, speaking of averages, we do know what the intelligence and ethics of denialists are….
You must admit guys – this post would have to be one of Vince’s worst. Will Cohenite add it to his list of worst denialist posts of all time.
Luke, I am also amazed at the extent to which the UAH, RSS, CRU and until recently GISS have been so similar. Yours, and others, thoughts on this?
Freeman Dyson seems to think that “local warning by a global average is misleading”.
http://www.towntopics.com/nov1908/other3.php
It is true that all the indices share a certain commonality, wiggles and bumps as our resident GURU, luke, describes for us plebs lacking in scientific nouse, which is to be expected; we are on the same planet after all (the 3 mouseketeers should avoid the obvious rejoinders), but the devil is the detail; a good exposition of the methodologies and results between the indices is here;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes
The last graph is interesting; the indices share the bumps and wriggles but at times during this 1 year period are up to 0.3C apart! As well, movements in common with such a wide divergence of amplitude can produce completely different trends or trend rates, as this graph shows with the major indices since 2002; the wriggles and bumps are similar but the ampitude range is different and the resulting trend rates are completely different, although even GISS is showing a slight downward trend;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ALL_SINCE_2002.jpg
Cohenite
“The last graph is interesting; the indices share the bumps and wriggles but at times during this 1 year period are up to 0.3C apart! ”
They measure different things.
However, as Jennifer pointed out the amazing thing is that they are so similar. I assume it’s because the atmosphere is generally warming, and they all respond to that.
“the wriggles and bumps are similar but the ampitude range is different and the resulting trend rates are completely different, although even GISS is showing a slight downward trend;”
Yes, but they measure different things. Short term wiggles aren’t that interesting, it’s like watching a freshly painted wall dry and pointing out that some areas dry faster or that some places are still wet.
Also your graph finished in May? They all kick upward after that.
The Woodfortrees graph is up-to-date, the ice-cap is August; measure different things; what, not temperature? Or do you mean temperature is different in different locales? That sounds like an argument against AGST to me.
Sure there are problems with measuring temperature, but this post is just a quibble. We know it gets hotter and colder on earth. We know that there are glacials and interglacials. If I took this post seriously I might not bother to measure the temperature of my car engine because it is always in flux and I can’t measure the temperature of the whole at any one time. But I think my bearings will still seize up if I try running it without water inthe radiator.
If Gray is right, and you can’t measure temperature that is in flux, then his concept of temperature doesn’t pass the “smell test”, as anyone who has put their hand on a hot stove knows. That’s the concept of temperature that most of us are talking about.
Maybe we should stop talking about average temperature and talk about representative temperature. From a pollster’s point of view taking all of these temperatures and averaging looks like a reasonable thing to do. And I would have thought many of the measuring errors would cancel each other out.
If the argument is only about accuracy, then I agree with Jennifer a few posts ago when she suggested that satellite data will become the preferred measure for global temperature because they eliminate some of the measuring problems.
I think this type of quibble is ultimately damaging to the evidence-based argument on global warming. I’m conscious that some eminent people have indulged in this one previously, and that McIntyre was a co-author of a paper arguing that there was no such thing as average temperature. But because the argument fails to pass the “smell test” and doesn’t deal with the real issue, it allows people like Luke to ridicule those who raise it, and smear others by association.
Cohenite,
I only count five values for 2008.
They’re measuring different places, yes. So why would you expect them to not periodically diverge? Two are for temp near the surface, and two are temps over an average of pressures (much higher in the atmosphere). Can you think of no reason that for some periods higher in the atmosphere is cooler than near the surface? Or rather that the anomaly is less?
This whole argument is like saying the inflation rate doesn’t exist because day by day it changes.
Jen – pretty simple – GISS makes an estimate of the rapidly warming Arctic which has been substantial in recent times – the others don’t.
Cohneite – come on – stop nitpicking – how has any of the sceptic quibbles changed your fundamental understanding of overall trends and periodic behaviour. It’s a storm in a teacup. It’s just Hansen bashing as sport.
As for all the debate about “a global average temperature” – again more nitpicking – it’s just “a” metric. Not “THE” metric. But using a global average temperature is not how climate models work so any asides to that point are simply bogus.
NT; I’m sure there are 8 in both the WFT and ICECAP graphs.
Luke; would you like to enlighten us with a description of how GISS “estimates” for the Arctic? While you cogitate here is an analysis of GISS’s Arctic (and US and Global) adjustments;
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watss/2007/08/lights_out_guest_post_by_steve.html
It’s by McIntyre so you’ll have to wear rose-coloured specs. A GMST maybe just “a” metric but in terms of the public face of AGM it is “the” hockeystick, sorry, metric.
Serves me right, blogging instead of working; here is the link;
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/lights_out_guest_post_by_steve.html
It seems as though the GISS near Arctic temperature anomalies are always significantly higher than the satellite anomalies (even taking into account different base periods):
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/gistemp_after_october_correction.gif
climate.uah.edu/oct2008.htm
I don’t have a problem with extrapolation over the poles, except that its being done with spotty observations of potentially the most UHI affected instruments. It would be nice for one of the other satellite products to do a similar extrapolation over the poles as a basis for comparison.
Don’t want to flog the horse, Cohenite, but it doesn’t have the last few months data in the ICECAP graphs. The last RSS and UAH data both show values around -0.15 or less. The last few values for those data sets was +0.16 or higher…
Cohenite, why don’t you contact GISS about the adjustment? Does the new data make a big mismatch with HADCRUT? Does it really change anything at all? Are you saying that 1934 should still be the hottest in the Arctic?
“A GMST maybe just “a” metric but in terms of the public face of AGM it is “the” hockeystick, sorry, metric.”
Do you really think the everyday run of the mill person with no detailed understanding bothers to find out the GMST? I doubt any of my friends would know what it is. The only people who kep track of it are the obsessives (like us) who follow it’s every move. Most other people have no idea…
Also, why are you prepared to use a GMST (with UAH) to claim that there is cooling, but then say that it doesn’t mean anything. Yet again you have two mutually exclusive concepts. This is, as Orwell would say, Doublethink.
Graham Young…”If Gray is right, and you can’t measure temperature that is in flux, then his concept of temperature doesn’t pass the “smell test”, ….”
Graham I think you’re missing Vincent’s point. He’s not saying there is no such thing as a temperature, he’s saying that temperature only applies to bodies in equilibrium. For example, if you took the temperature of a ventilated, large pot of water boiling on a constant stove, I’m sure you could claim the water temperature was 100 C. He’s saying the Earth’s temperature is not in equilibrium hence there is no ‘global’ temperature. It’s always changing, hour to hour, day to day, day to night, week to week, etc.
That’s not denying completely there has been a relative ‘average’ warming over a century of half a degree C, or so, at the surface. Some parts of the world have actually cooled in that period. In North America, the warmest year is still 1934 and some years around that date rival recent temperatures. I think that’s what Vincent is getting at. What’s the point of talking about ‘a’ global warming temperature when everything is so relative and so regional?
How do you apply the IPCC average warming of 0.6 C over a century? What does it mean? Does it mean you can stick a thermometer anywhere on Earth and have it read 0.6 C warmer than what the same device would have measured a century ago? No it doesn’t. All they are implying is that the Earth’s surface has warmed in a relative sense but there is not one measurement that can be taken to corroborate it. All the IPCC global temperature is good for is as a question in Trivial Pursuit, and to alarm the citizens of the world when people like Gore and Hansen cash in on it.
BTW…I think you meant McKitrick when you refered to McIntyre. It was McKitrick and Pat Michaels who did the paper on global temperature.
“Jen – pretty simple – GISS makes an estimate of the rapidly warming Arctic which has been substantial in recent times – the others don’t”
Gee, Luke,
You sure that’s all they do?
Fortunately, there are smarter people than Dr Grey out there. Having observed the same situation he has, they have then decided upon practical ways of getting around it.
Take the temperature at the same time each day, for example. Now, how hard was that to think of?
Take the temperature at specific places around the globe, and repeat those readings at the same time each day. Don’t just take a reading, here, a reading there.
The temperate can then be measured repeatedly, and consistently. What you are getting is then referred to as anomalies, that is the difference between readings.
That’s my understanding of the resolution to his problem. It’s not too hard to come up with, is it?
sjt,
“That’s my understanding of the resolution to his problem. It’s not too hard to come up with, is it?”
Simple mind, simple solution to a complex problem, not very hard at all!
All you did was to miss the gist of the article, simple!
SJT,
So why on earth do we need to know the average temperature of the earth’s surface? So it warms and cools – so what – we cannot do anything about since the earth’s thermal state is modulated by solar system.
Why do we need to know anything? In the end, we are all dead.
“Fortunately, there are smarter people than Dr Grey out there.”
Well that wouldnt include you would it SJT.
Smarter people would be able to spell his name properly –its only four letters for gods sake.
I here quote the beginning of the NASA release of October 30, 2008, entitled “Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth”:
During the time it takes you to read this article, something will happen high overhead that until recently many scientists didn’t believe in. A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the Sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page. “It’s called a flux transfer event or ‘FTE’,” says space physicist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Centre. “Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn’t exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible.” Indeed, today Sibeck is telling an international assembly of space physicists at the 2008 Plasma Workshop in Huntsville, Alabama, that FTEs are not just common, but possibly twice as common as anyone had ever imagined.
And this is the electrical energy which maintains the earth’s surface electric field (100 volts per vertical metre) between the earth’s surface and the ionosphere. The earth;s electric field, unless maintained by a constant supply of electrical energy, will quickly dissipate to zero. Its probably why life exists on the surface of the earth.
It is these electrical inputs which power the earth’s Faraday motor, and supply the energy surges which cause the PDO’s and other mysterious observed thermal fluctuations.
SJT,
A typical moron’s response – sorry I missed it while penning my previous post.
So how about justifying your position on AGW then, since based on your last post, it doesn’t matter.
As I used to work in the brown goods industry selling stereos and the like while I tried to survive your socialist created recessions, you would have been pigeon-holed as a wood-duck.
In other words, you have nothing.
McKitrick and Michaels make an excellent point in their paper, similar to a point made by Roger Pielke Sr over the last few years. A better measure of the Earth’s climate state is total heat content, which is dominated by deep ocean heat content, about which we have the least knowledge at present (sparse measurements started in 2003). Trends in heat content are more informative about changes in Earth’s climate. Heat content can be calculated by summing the fourth power of temperature over a large number of spatially disparate measurement points at the surface, in the oceans and in the atmosphere, over a multi-decade time. Unfortunately, we only have 29 years of measurements of the atmosphere. The surface and ocean measurement databases contain numerous errors, assumptions, omissions and an inherent assumption of noise properties that leads to claims of high resolution when thousands of readings are averaged together. An excellent example of this is the way GISS estimates polar temperatures. They extrapolate from a few surface stations using GCM output. This is hardly a measurement.
Keep in mind that, when ClimateAudit and WUWT found the NASA GISS goof last year, Hansen and Schmidt responded that the error in the US database was real, but had no major effect on GMST because the US is only a small fraction of the Earth’s surface. The same argument, of course, applies to the Arctic in spades. CRU, UAH and RSS simply leave it out of their GMST estimate, which is a far more honest approach.
At any given instant in time part of the world is warming and part of the world is cooling and the rest is not changing. At another instant in time the same is taking place but at different rates and at different places.
In order to get an instantaneous value for the average temperature at a given time a near infinite number of measurements would have to be made simultaneously for that instant in time.
This is impossible but the next best thing is measurements from satellites that circle the globe and provide the best statistical average for temperature.
The least effective way to obtain a statistical average for temperature is from land based measurements because of the very coarse sampling bias from heavy sampling on land but sparse sampling over the oceans, contamination from urban heat Island effects and local changes affecting the weather stations themselves.
It is no wonder that the land based systems are the prime reference for the AGW hypothesis, but even this temperature data set clearly shows that the Earth has been cooling since 2002 in spite of the steady increase in CO2.
“An excellent example of this is the way GISS estimates polar temperatures. They extrapolate from a few surface stations using GCM output. This is hardly a measurement.”
I can just about believe interpolation but to claim that anything is being measured here is a stretch.
Particularly when questions are now raised about serious UHI effects on the Russian and Siberian arctic surface stations. Like deliberate large scale heating of the “urban” bit(See Anthony Watts recently).
I conclude GISS ISN’T MEASUREMENT.
Global average temperature does have meaning when it is sourced from largely the same set of weatherstations. The number itself may not have meaning in the sense of the “true global avergage”, but the purpose is the examine trends, not absolutes. Even if the data set is not 100% consistent, when sufficient numbers of individual and spatially distributed weatherstations show a warming trend, then it is very likely the whole earth is too. And that is exactly what has been happening.
Gee, luke and NT, you are duds; I thought you would take this opportunity to knuckle into Essex, McKitrick and Andresen and introduce a bit of Hurst scaling just to get the circulation whizzing; nothing.
Robert; you say the Earth has a warming trend? Care to point it out in these graphs from Hadley and GISS showing no warming from 1995;
http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/no-significant-global-warming-since-1995/
Or this graph from CET which shows no warming from 1659; maybe you should turn your heater off;
http://www.climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htm
Luke:
“Gee I wonder how denialists seem to know “the world is cooling” yet any metric of temperature is impossible. We’ve just obsessed about October yet any measure is supposedly meaningless.”
What’s your take on GISS/Hansen rushing out a press release that October was the hottest month on record if monthly global averaged data is largely meaningless? Does it mean that Hansen is a dick? That GISS is playing politics more than science? Something else?
I don’t see a contradiction with saying that Hansen is a ‘bit out there’ while maintaining a strong belief in AGW. One scientist does not a theory make or break. I’m also wondering if I should be spending my time reading what Hansen has to say or if I should be looking at what other credible scientists are saying instead?
Will,
“What’s your take on GISS/Hansen rushing out a press release that October was the hottest month on record…”
This never happened. You either made it up or just copied what you read on a blog somewhere.
“I’m also wondering if I should be spending my time reading what Hansen has to say or if I should be looking at what other credible scientists are saying instead?”
Will, no one cares what you do.
Cohenite
Have you worked out what it means for a gas to be ‘saturated’ with IR yet? It’s hilarious that you call us duds, when the last few days you have been completely wrong on at least 4 ocassions. Did you finally work out that your Icecap graphs stopped in May yet?
And what is with the blogs you keep linking to, I can’t imagine a more superficial analysis. About as good as your analysis of the GISS and Hadley data, that was astounding. Breathtaking in it’s stupidity.
And now you’re indulging in double think again. You don’t accept that there is a Global mean surface temp so how can you claim there is no warming from those graphs? You have no measure.
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. Indeed it would be malpractice (and Vince has has a lot of that sort) to talk about global temperatures when you meant global temperature anomalies, one would think anyone trying to do that would be dishonest and we all know that IPCC expert reviewers take a pledge to be honest. usw
(If you don’t know what a temperature anomaly is, you start by taking a long temperature record and find the monthly average over some period usually 30 years. You then subtract each measurement for a month from the monthly average. This gets rid of seasonal variations. You then average the anomalies over some fairly large area, say 5 x 5 degrees lat and long. You then average the anomalies for the 5x5s making sure to correct for unequal areas, the world being round, to get a global temperature anomaly. Using anomalies also lets you compare how things are changing in Australia and Canada. There are slight variations depending on which record you are using, but this captures the general idea)
NT; stop being a supercilious nong; I connected to the blogs for the Graphs which are from Hadley and GISS, your favourites, and now you are rabbiting on about some analysis; you are incorrigible; incidentally, when have I been wrong; prove it or I may slap a SOC on you; haha.
A molecule which is capable of absorbing IR will be saturated between the time it is excited and the time it is dexcited due to collision or emission; in a LTE with thermalised conditions and a measurable mean free path longer than the OD the parcel of air will effectively be saturated until adiabatic convection transports the parcel/LTE to an atmospheric level where there is no temperature differential between the parcel/LTE and the surrounding air at which place, a CEL, and time the molecules will emit their nasty load of hell-inducing IR into space; hurrah! Now smartypants, tell me why a CO2 molecule is double degenerate (just like you and luke) and explain how a methane molecule can absorb more than at one wavelength of IR similtaneously?
Eli obviously can’t sleep; I hope there is nothing anomalous to keep him awake; the idea that averaging regionalised anomalous temperature data will produce a meaningful global indice is an interesting idea and one from which IPPC and AGW supporters are making a very nice living and otherwise alleviating their boredom abusing nice people like myself on the web; but it is deceiving because similar regional trends may be for different regional reasons as this Shindell piece from NASA about the LIA illustrates;
http:www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/ (// excluded)
The piece says that due to changes in insolation there was “global average surface temperature changes of only a few tenths of a degree, in line with the small change in solar output. However, regional cooling over Europe and North America [was] 5-10 times larger due to a shift in atmospheric winds.”
Say “5-10 times larger” very slowly.
Cohenite, can you say “Climate modeling”, very slowly. 🙂
Can you also say “we relied upon indirect temperature information from tree rings, “, even more slowly.
😉
SJT: “Cohenite, can you say “Climate modeling”, very slowly”
When you do that you suddenly realise climate cannot be modelled.
Cohenite – excellent mature analysis on the MDB drought (ongoing) by Ian Smith here:
http://farminstitute.org.au/_blog/Australian_Farm_Institute_Weblog
That’s the Ian Smith from the declining Walker circulation paper by Smith and Power – http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030854.shtml
Cohenite, you said that GISS only showed 0.4 C warming last Century remember?
You tried that incredible HADCRUT anaylsis too where you took 1879 as the start year for how much warming has happened over the 20th Century…
You misinterprted Lucia’s latest analysis wrong too.
You said that the ICECAP graph finished in August, when it finished in May.
All of that was wrong.
And you adimtted none of it.
You claim that there is no Global Mean Surface Temp, yet you attempt to claim the world is cooling by using it.
It’s quite an astounding list.
I think you have the saturation argument wrong too.
NT; when I make a mistake such as the Holocene/Eocene mix-up, or my confusing Jolliffe with Mann 2, I admit it; looking at your little list of accusations; the GISS graph shows a 0.4C warming from 1900-2000, that is beyond dispute; you fiddled the books by taking the time through to 2008 to show extra warming, which is disputed by the other indices as lucia’s and Tilo Reber’s analysis, amongst others, show. I used the Hadcrut graph to illustrate my point about beginning and ending of data being able to change trends; I had previously put up about 6 WFT graphs showing selected periods in the 20thC, some up to 40 years in length, which also proved that point, but you had no comment about that; as for misinterpreting lucia’s analysis, which you linked to, I asked her the question, did you even read her answer; if not do so, I don’t think you won that bet buddy; we’ll have to agree to disagree about the ICECAP graph; and I don’t claim there is no GMST, I just don’t like the fraudulent way it is used by IPCC and the scaremongers in the AGW crowd; I have explained many times where I think it is deficient and how the methods of overcoming its deficiencies are inadequate and I gave a decent example above. As for your comment about saturation you are just being petulant.
More generally, there are other ways of obfuscating/fibbing/misrepresenting/lying then doing it outright; lying or misrepresenting by ommission or silence is a well recognised legal issue; I think it is a tactic well known by AGW supporters and when ever there is no answer or the ad hom sewer is turned on I know I’ve struck a nerve. I don’t mind the point-scoring but this isn’t a game.
Well luke, I’d like your take on the article by Dr Smith; I have an opinion but I’d prefer to see what you think before expressing it.
And the Smith and Power paper dovetails nicely with the Vecchi paper and contradicts the White and Cayon and Tsonis papers; the issue being, is the current level of ENSO phasing exceptional or consistent with natural variation with that natural variation being capable of producing the climate periodicity without external factors such as AGW. But NT will be jubilant, as only a teenager can be, because he has been pushing this idea that ENSO has an AGW component or is in fact being dominantly determined by AGW.
The Australian Farm Institute’s weblog which Luke references above, is indeed worth a read, as it also includes a paper from Dr Stewart Franks on the MDB drought. Franks gives a realistic assessment on the situation there, and Ian Smith’s attempt to repudiate Franks was a weak one indeed. Smith, who is one of the CSIRO’s “global warming” (man made of course), promoters, makes use of the BoM’s ‘corrected’ temperature data to promote the politically correct line that the current MDB drought is the ‘longest and hottest on record’. … And doesn’t Franks demolish that one.
Anyway, as a member, I do compliment the Australian Farm Institute for publishing both side of the debate.
And off topic a little, in our region, in Orange today, a group of ‘warmaholics’ are conducting a ‘walk against global warming’, around the park. With temperatures in single didgits, …a wind chill factor that makes it feel even worse, ….and widespread snowfalls down to 1000 meters in places, …. IN LATE NOVEMBER!! Hope they have fun! Or maybe ‘Hughie’ is having fun with them !
“Global Warming” indeed.
Cohers – the old partial truth shell game by Franks. Think we’re used to it by now.
Smith smiling with restraint knows what Franks doesn’t say. We’ve been over it all before.
Cohers if you don’t think there’s a lot going on with southern hemsipheric circulation that more than produces a risk management case well I think you’re blinkered.
Let’s check’em off Cohers
Wrong times of the year to blame all on El Nino
ENSO only explains 50% Australia’s rainfall variation
Neutral years (i.e those not ENSO or anti-ENSO) also have not delivered rain
SAM issue well explored by obs and models
Stratospheric ozone and tropospheric greenhouse combo effect
Changed STR over a century
Unprecedented drop in SOI – i.e. Walker circulation – possibly meaning EL Nino needs to be redefined
Rain bands missing the continent – just a little move is all it needs
Changing super-gyre and EAC
Warming Tasman is a complication with a plus
Indian ocean warming – dipole??
And it’ all very consistent with an AGW story. And very important for Australians.
And yep PDO is out there too.
So it’s a risk management issue Cohers (way beyond ETS schemes, Hansen Gore, Flannery, GISS, Rudd and Wong).
We really do need to know what’s going on. And so do you. That’s where the clever research is looking. And you’re not even considering it. So pooh on you.
Anyway if you’re lucky, the human hydro-illogical cycle will soon complete. It will piss down. Everyone will laugh about AGW and drought. The sort of laugh you have when you have a near miss driving.
Until the drought comes back again. And how soon is the issue.
The material discussed is way above Sid’s comprehension levels so we’ll let him toddle off to church and believe whatever he wants. Smith just politely flicked Franks thesis… If Sid wasn’t so piss weak he’d step up to the plate with his own rainfall and runoff analysis !
The obstensible issue with the SOI is that it has been exceptionally low/-ve during the winter months in recent times and this has correlated with the AGW factor having a greater imput as per the Cai and Cowan paper;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL028037.shtml
But my mathematical friend can’t find a pattern over the BoM SOI records, which go back to 1876, which is consistent with either such a thesis OR the PDO phase shifts which definitely happened in the 20thC. Other than that I will make sure Stewart Franks is aware of Smith’s rebuttal, although that may be too strong a word, and we’ll see if he comes back with anything. One point where I must disagree with you is your “Stratospheric ozone and Troposphere greenhouse combo effect”; this is not real and I know you put store in Santer but that guy has form with truncation of data periods to produce a favorable result. If you’re interested I’ll give the link to a past paper by Santer from the ’90’s which was the great AGW hope back then.
And I’m not sure what you mean by risk management other than dealing with “carbon pollution”.
‘Rain bands missing the continent’
Not at the moment they’re not.
NT; oh, you were right about the ICECAP graph; here is a September effort;
http:reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/10/updated-11-year-global-temp-anomoly.html (// excluded)
Santer? huh – not even close mate.
Cohenite you are so uninformed on these issues it’s tedious. One day you might catch up. Franks problem is that no one takes him seriously.
You should get youself a copy of Australian Rainman Professional software and get educated on SOI. Who knows might make you dangerous.
Yes I know you don’t understand risk management. That’s coz you don’t have to make any decisions regarding climate risk. From wherever it springs.
What would we do without 1998? Here’s a toast, to 1998!
Pierrehumbert has already stated the models make no such assumptions and don’t work on the basis of a Global Surface Temperature. Gray is just showing he has no idea what the state of the science actually is, and is an embarrasing himself.
I disagree with my website host Graham Young on this one. The global average surface temperature ‘statistic’ is another example of sloppy, bad science used to create alarm:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/jgr07.html
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/globaltemp.html
http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf
SJT:
You are an embarassment – all you do is post unsubstantiated allegations – “Pierrehumbert has…” – where is the proof he stated that?
And when are you going to stop the ad homs and vilification of scientists who challenge your religious beliefs.
Paul,
Agree with Ross McKitrick’s (et al) conclusion. Statistics is actually the means to summarise a set of objects by some metric – say cannon balls with diameter.
But the for the earth’s temperature (There is only one earth and thus it cannot have an average anything) it is the average global temperature of the thermometers – and remember when a temperature measurement is taken, it is the measurement of a previously calibrated thermometer being in thermal equilibrium with another object whose temperature we are interested in, here air at 2 meters above ground.
So the temperature is assigned to 2 objects – thermometer and an unknown volume of air. The heat content is quite different to both so which one do we use? I assert that climate science uses the thermal state of the thermometers rather than the air. So the global warming oberved is simply that of the thermometers, not the earth.
Simple physics 101, but probably to obvious for the usual suspects to comprehend.
SJT an embarrassment says kooky fat chook? LMAO. Sinkers we have yet to see you make one sensible comment on climate science. You’re way off the reservation grandad- go home and stick your head up a kimberlite.
SJT – it’s fascinating that for a group so opposed to a GMST – that they can’t stop talking about it and watching every wiggle. They’re addicted – and somehow despite the metric supposedly being useless they assert they know the Earth is cooling by 0.xxxxxyyyyyy C. Holy cow. WTF and ROTFL.
Real scientists as opposed to religious flat-earth bigots, right wing jack-boot lovers and science denialists would have come up with something better by now and have it implemented.
You are spot on there, Luke. It doesn’t exist, but they can’t take their eyes off it.
Louis: I have already linked to Pierrehumberts comments on how models work in other posts.
However, I did find this.
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-coupled-ao-gcms-work.html
They split the atmosphere up into boxes, and work out the radiation balance, etc, for each box. There is no reference to a global average temperature going in, although that can be an output.
SJT, I see you continue demonstrating your excellence in posting non sequiturs. Andlinking to Connelly’s web blog – heavens, you really are clueless. Posting a blog entry hardly ranks as a citation to the literature.
Luke, whenever you reply with ad homs, all of us know that you can’t counter the argument. Perhaps we should call your Lamprey Luke – king of the parasites. And before I forget Lamprey, you AGW morons reckoned global average temperature was rising, global warming? remember, but now when we sceptics use that same metric and show that its cooling, you change the goal posts and scream that we are obsessed with it.
Why don’t you infest Barry Brook’s bonehead climate site and join Ender and take potshots at us from afar.
Connelly works with models himself. I guess he could be lying, and it’s all just a fantastic invention purely created with the intention to deceive us. But, wait, he has provided links to the source code. Go on Loius, get to work.
SJT,
Nameless and gormless intellectual dwarfs don’t instruct me to go to work.
Connelly is an extreme Green Activist and thus, presumably with an inability to recognize facts from fiction. It is generally accepted that the Greens are fast and loose with facts.
As you are a computer programmer, you should be aware of the total fictitious nature of your art. None of the existing GCM’s can mimic natural climate variation, but when these do start to do that, then we might have another look at it. Right now, after billions of dollars of money stolen from the private sector, (yes you and your fellow statists are thieves), GCM’s do not replicate natural climate variation. How could they? None incorporate clouds, for a start.
And as Connelly has been proven to censor Wikipedia as shown by Lawrence Solomon, so your resorting to using him as a citation for your AGW fantasy would embarrass most logical minds.
But why am I bothering with you in the place – I keep forgetting that I have never ever won an issue debating idiots.
OK – so let’s see (a) the GMST metric is a flawed concept (b) the world is cooling.
That’s logical (not!)
SJT – Sinkers entire existence is a non sequitur but I guess what would you expect from a kooky chook who believes in a fairyland magic electric universe.
“None incorporate clouds, for a start.” SJT – has Foghorn’s beak gotten longer – every fascist fib seems to make it bigger.
Hey Lamprey, the IEEE has it as an official area of scientific study – and it is the largest professional science organization on earth; (Professional Disclosure – I am a member). You are not a member of any professional science organisation, are you? GSA? AIG? AusIMM? Or are you a member of WAA?
Science is measuring billions of EV entering into the earth from space via EFT’s and you call it fairyland magic electric universe? You are the type of nong who while disbelieving physical reality thinks its safe to sit on railway lines. Your choice, though judging by your posts here and on other threads, you do seem to have had more than one glancing encounter with a train during railway line occupation periods.
Belittling a serious area of science is because you realise Plasma Universe theory is the only physical theory that can torpedo AGW pseudoscience, hence your sterling efforts to denigrate it. Poor little poisonous dwarf you are, all you do is to give us free advertising with your vilifications. So keep it up Lamprey, not often we get free advertising.
(I see from your Gravatar that you are self conscious over your bonehead, hence the cap – at least Barry Brook is up front with his pate).
Whoops I have seem to have got my EFT’s mixed up with my FTE’s (Flux Tube Events).
Louis, you change the goalposts quicker than I can blink an eye. You ask for evidence, I give you a link to the source code. For some reason, that’s not good enough for you.
Non Sequitur : OK – so let’s see (a) the GMST metric is a flawed concept (b) the world is cooling. That’s logical (not!)
To which we could add : OK – so let’s see (a) the GMST metric is a flawed concept (b) the world is warming. That’s logical (not!)
The dwarf is as much fun as a sackful of wet mice.
SJT,
Evidence is not source code. Evidence is documentation of physical measurements. Computer source code is not a measurement.
So you still have a problem.
We were discussing if Gray was right when he said the models use the global average temperature. I said he was wrong. The source code is evidence he was wrong. The non sequitor part comes from your continual shifting of the goal posts. Of course nothing follows. Nothing can when the topic being discussed is always changing.
SJT
So just where did Gray state that GCM’s uses the global average temperature as an input.
Evidence please.
Sinkers you shouldn’t be a member of any club that would have you as a member.
Mysterious unseen electrics forces …. oooooo ..oooooo ….. LOL Yes yes gramps. sure.
Hey Lamprey
Just as mysterious as the electrical forces activating your brain – not confusing electrostatics with electricity are you?
SJT,
What evidence that Gray asserted that the GCM’s had a GMT as an input – evidence please
It has been very interesting on this thread to see how these AGW believers have been trying to do a hatchet job on Stewart Franks, who would know more about the topic in question (climate and drought) then the lot of them put together. Even bringing out their big gun Ian Smith, turned out to be a fizzer. They can’t feel too secure about their position as each time one of an ever increasing number of scientists with impeccable credentials dares to question the AGW theory, the hatchets come out and the smear campaign starts.
And even the climate itself is working against them. All across the NH extreme winter conditions are setting in, even before winter begins, with countless record low temps being broken, some of them well over100 years old. With many very early heavy snow falls being recorded.
And here in S E Australia, November is really Snow vember as WeatherZone puts it. Just imagine how, with extreme heat rather than extreme cold, David from the BoM would be telling us that it is caused by “global warming”, (man made of course), and it is real and it is happening now. But instead…silence.
Sid,
Good summary
Apparently the Sun’s heliopause has reduced 25% in diameter – which in terms of plasma universe theory means that electric power to the sun has dropped – which in terms of plasma universe theory means that the electric power to the earth has decreased, thus reducing its “global” temperature.
In the meantime CO2 concentration in air has accelerated (Sorry SJT and Lamprey) while causing a cooling.
Pretty Cool Theory, huh.
Louis
Bit off topic.
After you mentioned the doctrine from the last century, permeating geology, I began looking at theories and natural processes, that were not pursued or actually “forbidden” ie. deemed against the prevailing trend in science and therefore discouraged.
I have found a wealth of interesting info.
Seems to me it almost comes down to, whom you know and who supports you?
Just an example N Tesla is hardly even mentioned nowadays, amongst a lot of others.
Strange but true, history repeats itself.
Well Sidnay – how do feel that your boy Franks is only telling you a fraction of the full story – are you happy with that standard Sid? Of course Louis having no scientific discrimination and beleieving in fairy-like phenomena would be content. But why don’t we get the full story Sid? How come? What’s being hidden?
Get the full story here in the first comment Sid – http://farminstitute.org.au/_blog/Australian_Farm_Institute_Weblog
Anyway – speaking or recent weather – why go stateside – a foretaste of things to come with a massive AGW like storm pummeling SEQ – apparently radar reflectivities off the scale.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/20/2425525.htm
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/gallery/0,23816,5035825-17382,00.html#
And an excellent review by Barry Brook’s (thanks for tip Louis) on WHY GLOBAL WARMING HAS NOT STOPPED.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/warming_goes_on.html
bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/23/what-bob-carter-and-andrew-bolt-fail-to-grasp/
Sid of course would remember my excellent cold air outbreaks in a greenhouse world here some time ago now.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001802.html
Gray says
A link to luke from 2006; I’ll refrain; the Met Office link taking a Keenlyside approach whereby natural process, ENSO, is described as a “natural fluctuation of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming” is interesting in a peptic ulcer sort of way. It also says that 2008 is the tenth warmest in the global record. That is gibberish based on a complete lack of understanding of how PDO phase shift can cause large, immediate step-ups in temperature; when base periods used to determine anomalies fail to account for such step-ups as shown here;
http://i38.tinypic.com/16aa03o.jpg
then succeeding temperatures after the step-up are subject to an artificial plateau. The fact is the same trends and higher absolute temperatures occured at the beginning of the 20thC; the period from 1976 is not exceptional and the period from 1998 onwards is absolutely inconsistent with AGW. The resources devoted to AGW are a disgrace given the number of real environment/pollution issues existing in the world, none of which have anything to do with AGW.
This phase shift theory has to be seen for the gibberish that it is – so PDO and ENSO are “building heat” on centennial scales. Given Franks has been telling PDO has been operating on at least 400 year time scales and probably longer – given ENSO has been going for 5000 years at least it should be very very warm by now if the PDO + El Nino heat building theorists are right !
Infinite heat engine …
That’s right – magic heat created from nowhere. (It’s “Nature” yo’all – LOL)
And so Cohers simply dismisses all the work being done on SAM and STR. Changing Walker circulation on a centennial scale…. LOL
Anyway enjoy the music – it will be raining soon
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI_JKC4f4QA&feature=related
You are becoming hysterical luke; PDO does not built heat, it redistributes it and a perfectly adequate mechanism, the cessation or reduction in deep water upwelling, has been described by numerous scientists to explain how PDO creates conditions whereby heat that would otherwise be recycled into the deep ocean is left to raise SST with resultant effects on GMST; I’m not saying this is the only factor, obviously insolation variation plays a part as the Shindell piece shows, but I think CO2 is negligible by comparison.
Too right – reconcile Figure 3 with the global temperature record on a 400 year scale !
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0606/2005GL025052/2005GL025052.pdf
Ya got nuttin …
Vale Great Pacific Shit Theory
Insolation doesn’t explain temperature variation either.
And did Franks actually say in his last para in paper above (and gee strangely uncle Sid didn’t mention this)
“However, if anthropogenic
climate change was to dominate natural variability in the
future, resulting in a persistent warm period similar to the
positive phase of the PDO, then it is possible that we may
see a sustained period of permanently elevated El Nino
occurrence.”
Was that some “doubt”
Here’s a nicer version http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ1c9ErCn7w
Luke must be scraping the bottom of the barrel, if all he can drag up is Barry Brooks….
Barry Brooks!!! Sucking on public funding to fire broadsides at any one who dares to question the AGW Faith.
Actually scum bag – I was quoting from one of your pin-up boys. Pray hard next Sunday mate.
Hypocrites always need to,
Anyway where’s your rainfall analysis – you’ve been ducking for over 12 months now. Sid’s been on the run.
And that reminds me Sidnay – Barry was quoting these excellent sources:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/warming_goes_on.html
You made a typo Luke – you wrote ‘excellent’ instead of ‘crap.’
It seems Luke has sprayed another torrent of reaction to criticism of AGW theory but to deem RC, Tamino, Gristmill and Hadley as excellent sources leads to the next logical step – excellent sources of what, crap?
“Insolation doesn’t explain temperature variation either.” !? Aw, come on.
What changes have there been recently to cause the variation?
Now Cohers – don’t do a runner – RC et al was just anti-Sid for some comic relief – back to it – you’ve got 400 years of PDO – where’s that relationship again? Step right up. Have a go !
You might be able to help Roy get it in GRL.
AND AND AND – did ya like the last line of http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0606/2005GL025052/2005GL025052.pdf
Well Will, when I read your post I thought disingenuous, but I don’t think you’re capable of that so I’ll not be glib and remark about the sun setting and it getting colder; cycle 24 is a bit of a dud, have you noticed? Hathaway is starting to look as bad as Flannery with his solar predictions; better efforts are by Professor Landscheidt and here is a user friendly version;
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/17
If you’re really keen why don’t you try out the Livingston and Penn paper on sunspot decline. And BTW, when you say “variation” I presume you mean the temperature decline.
I’ll give you a tip, even McIntyre won’t allow any references to Landscheidt at RC. Something about “Astrology”.
Link please to CA censorship.
Ha, Will, I just realised you say McIntyre at RC; what a Freudian, or should that be Schmidtian, slip.
Cohers – how’s that temperature versus 400 years of PDO going eh?
luke; your link didn’t work, or at least required payment; do you have an abstract?
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…. 🙂
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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?
Otherwise y’aal be a bit threadbare, yuk, yuk,yuk.
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?
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