Perspectives on Temperature

[Surface Detail]

---which is why my thinking always ends up w/ the conclusion that if we don't know what temperatures things are, then we can't say which is hotter or cooler than the other.

You may want to carefully re-read NASA'a explanation before jumping to erroneous conclusions.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There is no reference number, nor does there need to be one - that's exactly the point. While it is difficult to define the temperature of the Earth as a whole, it is perfectly possible to determine how much its temperature has risen or fallen, i.e. the temperature anomaly.

Just think about it. Say you have 100 thermometers dotted around the globe - what is the average temperature of the Earth? The mean of these temperature readings? No, not necessarily, because the thermometers may not be in representative locations. Now imagine that, over time, the mean temperature indicated by the thermometers rises by 1 C. We still don't know for sure what the absolute temperature of the Earth is, but do know that its temperature has risen by about 1 C. This is the temperature anomaly.

And how much was the urban growth around them, and the cooling loss?

In my area, the evaporation cooling loss is in the neighborhood of 7 W/m^2.

 

[Surface Detail]

And how much was the urban growth around them, and the cooling loss?

In my area, the evaporation cooling loss is in the neighborhood of 7 W/m^2.

Can we stick to the point, please? The urban heat island effect is a different matter, and has already been addressed many times here.

 

[Lord of Planar]

47 terawatts of heat are conducted from below to the surface, but the rate of conductivity is low enough that the effect is ignored for most applications. Advocates of AGW ignore heat conduction in the crust and talk only about the heating of the atmosphere and oceans.

What's amazing though is that there's so much money funding so many studies of the heating of the atmosphere&oceans, but nobody wants to say what the average temp is. A hundred million miles away everyone agrees that the surface of the sun is exactly 5,778K, but right here at home everyone's close-lipped about the temp of the earth's surface.

You have a point, but I suspect you don't give the anthropogenic effect it's due merit. I strongly disagree that CO2 is the primary effect of our warming.

We have capped off parts of our globe with buildings, concrete, and asphalt changing the emissivity of that land area. Worse yet, the rainwater no longer causes the same hydrological cycle in such regions. When such rainwater is mostly now channeled into storm sewers, we lose evapotranspiration, which is very significant. As city areas grow, very few meteorological stations are immune to the effects of urban and rural increases in temperature.

We have polluted the skies with aerosols, and enough cover the ice regions to reduce the albedo. A reduction of 1% in ice albedo causes more melting than quadrupling CO2 in the atmosphere, even with the warming claimed for CO2, and we have reduced the albedo far more than 1%.

We have had a significant effect on the earth, only not because of CO2.

Then there is the sun. It takes around 100 years for the solar, ocean, atmospheric coupling to equalize to 70%. The solar radiance peaked in 1958, and it is around this time-frame that we finally see the end of warming by the sun.

You would be wise to not dismiss our changes of the earth, and keep the truth in perspective.

There are probably $200 spent to show AGW for ever $1 spent to not show it in the climate sciences. That's what happens when politics controls science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

At some point all the thermometers need to be calibrated to a standard.

We shouldn't forget those meteorological station in Australia that bottomed out and couldn't read colder than... what was it? -10C?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, typically the freezing and boiling points of pure water at standard pressure. But what does that have to do with this discussion?

Then you need a calibrated pressure for that...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Can we stick to the point, please? The urban heat island effect is a different matter, and has already been addressed many times here.

No it hasmn't.

Just saying it's adjusted properly isn't so. I have asked you to show how they accounted for it, and your links fell way short. You comprehension of such thinks are obviously limited to what some pundit tells you. I have explained why both homogenization and comparing with rural sites do not address my point, in the links you guys have provided. You guys have completely failed to address my concerns to any satisfaction what so ever.

Please stop being so blind to the facts.

 

[Terryj]

To really get a look at our climate change lets look at a graph comparing the last 500 million years. You can see from this graph the we are the coldest the planet has been in 450 million years. We are currently in the warmest part of the coldest part. We are at the zero mark on the left of the graph.

 

[expat_panama]

You may want to carefully re-read ...

This is where global warming convos usually end, that the reason the earth is warming is anyone who doesn't buy it is a bad guy. Meanwhile we go back to our private lives knowing that the only way we can tell if something's getting hotter is by measuring temps, and "anomalies" are only used by political hacks.

 

[expat_panama]

...you don't give the anthropogenic effect it's due merit...

47 terawatts of geothermal energy rising up from below earth's surface simply can't compete w/ 173,000 terawatts coming down on it from the sun. It would be like a 1-watt flashlight under a table shining up w/ 37 100-watt bulbs hanging from above baking the place settings.

 

[Steve Case]

--and if it comes from NASA we don't have to rely on our lying eyes. After all, they explain--

In climate change studies, temperature anomalies are more important than absolute temperature. A temperature anomaly is the difference from an average, or baseline, temperature. The baseline temperature is typically computed by averaging 30 or more years of temperature data. A positive anomaly indicates the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly indicates the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline. When calculating an average of absolute temperatures, things like station location or elevation will have an effect on the data (ex. higher elevations tend to be cooler than lower elevations and urban areas tend to be warmer than rural areas). However, when looking at anomalies, those factors are less critical. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations.

Using anomalies also helps minimize problems when stations are added, removed, or missing from the monitoring network. The above diagram shows absolute temperatures (lines) for five neighboring stations, with the 2008 anomalies as symbols. Notice how all of the anomalies fit into a tiny range when compared to the absolute temperatures. Even if one station were removed from the record, the average anomaly would not change significantly, but the overall average temperature could change significantly depending on which station dropped out of the record. For example, if the coolest station (Mt. Mitchell) were removed from the record, the average absolute temperature would become significantly warmer. However, because its anomaly is similar to the neighboring stations, the average anomaly would change much less.​

Meanwhile, in real life nobody measures temperature w/ an "anomaluremeter". Science is not some clown w/ a white coat, science is observation that we can reproduce.

Nice technique and did you mean an [anomalometer?]

 

[Into the Night]

47 terawatts of heat are conducted from below to the surface, but the rate of conductivity is low enough that the effect is ignored for most applications.

Paradox. Either 47 terrawatts of heat are conducted or they aren't. Which is it, dude?

Advocates of AGW ignore heat conduction in the crust and talk only about the heating of the atmosphere and oceans.

Actually, they talk of 'trapping' heat. Something that is not possible.

What's amazing though is that there's so much money funding so many studies of the heating of the atmosphere&oceans, but nobody wants to say what the average temp is.

Heat isn't temperature. Heat is measured in watts. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Both NOAA and NASA claim to publish graphs of global temperatures. They're manufactured data.

A hundred million miles away everyone agrees that the surface of the sun is exactly 5,778K,

We don't know the temperature of the surface of the Sun. We only have a general idea, say to within 100K deg F or so.

but right here at home everyone's close-lipped about the temp of the earth's surface.

We don't know the temperature of the Earth. The temperatures across Earth's surface vary widely.

 

[Into the Night]

You may want to carefully re-read NASA'a explanation before jumping to erroneous conclusions.

NASA's statements on temperatures of Earth are themselves erroneous conclusions. They are manufactured data.

 

[Into the Night]

Can we stick to the point, please? The urban heat island effect is a different matter, and has already been addressed many times here.

Irrelevant. Cooked data is useless in a statistical analysis. Urban 'heat island' effect corrections are not legit. You can't use a statistical output as it's own input.

 

[Into the Night]

We shouldn't forget those meteorological station in Australia that bottomed out and couldn't read colder than... what was it? -10C?

Really??? What were they using? Meat thermometers? Don't they know that Australia can get cold in the winter?? :lamo

 

[Into the Night]

Then you need a calibrated pressure for that...

...and distilled water.

 

[Into the Night]

47 terawatts of geothermal energy rising up from below earth's surface simply can't compete w/ 173,000 terawatts coming down on it from the sun. It would be like a 1-watt flashlight under a table shining up w/ 37 100-watt bulbs hanging from above baking the place settings.

Never heard it described quite that way before!

 

[Into the Night]

--and if it comes from NASA we don't have to rely on our lying eyes. After all, they explain--

In climate change studies, temperature anomalies are more important than absolute temperature. A temperature anomaly is the difference from an average, or baseline, temperature. The baseline temperature is typically computed by averaging 30 or more years of temperature data. A positive anomaly indicates the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly indicates the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline. When calculating an average of absolute temperatures, things like station location or elevation will have an effect on the data (ex. higher elevations tend to be cooler than lower elevations and urban areas tend to be warmer than rural areas). However, when looking at anomalies, those factors are less critical. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations.

Using anomalies also helps minimize problems when stations are added, removed, or missing from the monitoring network. The above diagram shows absolute temperatures (lines) for five neighboring stations, with the 2008 anomalies as symbols. Notice how all of the anomalies fit into a tiny range when compared to the absolute temperatures. Even if one station were removed from the record, the average anomaly would not change significantly, but the overall average temperature could change significantly depending on which station dropped out of the record. For example, if the coolest station (Mt. Mitchell) were removed from the record, the average absolute temperature would become significantly warmer. However, because its anomaly is similar to the neighboring stations, the average anomaly would change much less.​

Meanwhile, in real life nobody measures temperature w/ an "anomaluremeter". Science is not some clown w/ a white coat, science is observation that we can reproduce.

Science is actually just a set of falsifiable theories. Reproducing observations is not science. The daily sunrise is not science. It is simply an observation, interpreted different ways by different people.

 

[Into the Night]

Except the heat conduction doesn't travel very deep.

I believe you mean absorption. Conduction travels quite a ways.

 

[Into the Night]

There is also the fact, that the land is opaque and solid, vs. the oceans which are transparent and fluid to shortwave energy, but opaque and fluid to longwave.

Uh. It gets pretty damn dark in ocean water once you go deep enough.

 

[Into the Night]

There is no reference number, nor does there need to be one - that's exactly the point. While it is difficult to define the temperature of the Earth as a whole, it is perfectly possible to determine how much its temperature has risen or fallen, i.e. the temperature anomaly.

Baserate fallacy. You can't measure an 'anomaly' without measuring temperature in the first place, dude.

Just think about it. Say you have 100 thermometers dotted around the globe - what is the average temperature of the Earth?

Unknown.

The mean of these temperature readings?

No. it is unknown.

No, not necessarily, because the thermometers may not be in representative locations.

No, because there are no enough thermometers.

Now imagine that, over time, the mean temperature indicated by the thermometers rises by 1 C. We still don't know for sure what the absolute temperature of the Earth is, but do know that its temperature has risen by about 1 C.

No, you don't. Baserate fallacy.

This is the temperature anomaly.

No, this is bad math.

 

[expat_panama]

...did you mean an [anomalometer?]

Yeah that's right. The spell checker didn't have it but I'm talking about the thing that looks like a thermometer but doesn't measure temperature and has a dial in the back where u can set the reading to show whatever you want.

 

[expat_panama]

47 terawatts of heat are conducted from below to the surface, but the rate of conductivity is low enough that the effect is ignored for most applications.

Paradox. Either 47 terrawatts of heat are conducted or they aren't. Which is it, dude?....

We seem to have a couple obstacles in communication here.

One is some kind of math/science problem here, maybe we can get together on a few shared facts. Most folks say that the energy from the sun is 177,000 terawatts and that the heat being conducted up from underground is 47 terawatts. That averages out for every square meter of the earth almost 3 kw from above and less than one watt from below. It's why when you air-condition your home you care about insulating the roof and the walls and you don't pay for insulating your floor. That's our science/math problem and if you're not with me on this so far let me know and maybe we can look at it together more.

The other obstacle to our communication sure looks like a status/ego conflict and if that's the case you win --cheers!

 

[longview]

---which is why my thinking always ends up w/ the conclusion that if we don't know what temperatures things are, then we can't say which is hotter or cooler than the other.

There are some unbiased signs that it has warmed, ( the plant hardiness zones) but that is very gradual.

 

[longview]

Yes, typically the freezing and boiling points of pure water at standard pressure. But what does that have to do with this discussion?

You said "There is no reference number, nor does there need to be one - that's exactly the point. " about that the measurements are anomalies,
but that is incorrect, there is a reference number, and it has to be stable. The anomaly is a change in reference to what the average temperature for that station is,
but that reference is a real measurement.