• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Perspectives on Temperature

---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.
Everyone has their own point of view here but there's got to be a few things we can all agree on.

How about we agree that the only way to see if something's cold or hot is by measuring its temperature with a thermometer? --and a thermometer can be many different things (mercury in a tube, a compound bar, your hand, isotope content of pack ice, etc.). All thermometers have some time lag from the time of the sensing to the later time of reporting. All thermometer measurements report for a specific location and the readings can define a range of probably surrounding temperatures.

There are ways of determining the total average temperature of the entire biosphere and the measurements also tell us the level of accuracy range of the reading.

We should be in agreement with this, and anyone who's convinced that the biosphere's 1.5C hotter now than 1850 should have sufficiently accurate temperature readings for then and now.
 
Last edited:
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!

So you are resolving the paradox by saying that 47 terrawatts of heat IS coming up from below. Fine. I'll consider this paradox resolved.

I am not here to 'win'. I am here to present arguments, just like you. I will also call people out on problems with any arguments presented. A paradox is a fallacy. This one I assume was caused by careless wording. Your basic argument still stands. I have not seen anyone present any counterargument to it. The Sun's output is far greater than anything inside our own Earth.

I do have a question though. Where are you getting your actual numbers from?
 
Everyone has their own point of view here but there's got to be a few things we can all agree on.

How about we agree that the only way to see if something's cold or hot is by measuring its temperature with a thermometer? --and a thermometer can be many different things (mercury in a tube, a compound bar, your hand, isotope content of pack ice, etc.). All thermometers have some time lag from the time of the sensing to the later time of reporting. All thermometer measurements report for a specific location and the readings can define a range of probably surrounding temperatures.

There are ways of determining the total average temperature of the entire biosphere and the measurements also tell us the level of accuracy range of the reading.

We should be in agreement with this, and anyone who's convinced that the biosphere's 1.5C hotter now than 1850 should have sufficiently accurate temperature readings for then and now.

Taking a measurement of the entire surface of the Earth would require far more thermometers than we have available. Yes, theoretically, you could calculate a statistical analysis to produce a global temperature. Statistics requires the calculation of the margin of error. This number is calculated not only from the instrument tolerances, but also from the possible temperature gradient per mile (or some other fixed distance).

Personally, I have seen gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile. It's not unusual either. It can happen when any rapidly moving front is passing through.
 
Taking a measurement of the entire surface of the Earth would require far more thermometers than we have available. Yes, theoretically, you could calculate a statistical analysis to produce a global temperature. Statistics requires the calculation of the margin of error. This number is calculated not only from the instrument tolerances, but also from the possible temperature gradient per mile (or some other fixed distance).

Personally, I have seen gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile. It's not unusual either. It can happen when any rapidly moving front is passing through.
We can and do measure earth surface temperatures and the measurements tell us not only the average temperature but also the standard deviation --the range of probable error.

This only measures the temperature of the atmosphere but the vast majority of the mass of the biosphere is water, but once again we can and do measure ocean temperatures and the number of readings of locations and depths tell us once again what average we can see and what the margin of error is.

So far there is neither a published consensus on the current average biospheric temperature nor the degree of accuracy --much less one for 1850. This could be done but it hasn't --one good reason why is the fact that it would most likely prove that there's no evidence to support the official 1.5C average temperature increase since 1850.
 
... Where are you getting your actual numbers from?
Just type into google "How many terawatts reach Earth from the sun?", or "How many terawatts of earth heat comes up to the surface?".
 
We can and do measure earth surface temperatures and the measurements tell us not only the average temperature but also the standard deviation --the range of probable error.
Okay. The first question to ask for such a claim is how many thermometers were used to measure the temperature of the Earth's surface?
This only measures the temperature of the atmosphere but the vast majority of the mass of the biosphere is water, but once again we can and do measure ocean temperatures and the number of readings of locations and depths tell us once again what average we can see and what the margin of error is.
Same question applies. You can't calculate margin of error without knowing this number.
So far there is neither a published consensus on the current average biospheric temperature nor the degree of accuracy --much less one for 1850.
How many thermometers were used to measure the temperature of the Earth in 1850?
This could be done but it hasn't --one good reason why is the fact that it would most likely prove that there's no evidence to support the official 1.5C average temperature increase since 1850.
No, it hasn't been done because it's not possible to be done.

An average by itself is meaningless. A statistical analysis MUST provide the margin of error as well. Further, a statistical analysis can only use raw data. This is because selection of data points MUST be by randN. That means a point, if it's picked, can only be picked ONCE. Not twice, not 1.7 times, ONCE.

This also means the raw data must be available for perusal.

Biasing factors must also be eliminated. Location grouping is a biasing factor. Thermometers must be uniformly placed. Time is a biasing factor. Thermometers must be read simultaneously.

So....first question. How many thermometers are used to measure the temperature of the Earth?
 
Just type into google "How many terawatts reach Earth from the sun?", or "How many terawatts of earth heat comes up to the surface?".

So you are using numbers guessed by other people? What instrumentation was used? Who took the measurements and when? Where is the raw data?

Please understand I am not necessarily disputing your numbers, but I have a high standard for accepting data. There are lots of random numbers flying around that is considered 'data'.
 
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.

I never consider geothermal or tidal forcing as heat to the earth as they are insignificant in any calculations used.
 
Uh. It gets pretty damn dark in ocean water once you go deep enough.

That's because the solar energy is already absorbed above that point. Have to get pretty deep though, right?
 
Everyone has their own point of view here but there's got to be a few things we can all agree on.

How about we agree that the only way to see if something's cold or hot is by measuring its temperature with a thermometer? --and a thermometer can be many different things (mercury in a tube, a compound bar, your hand, isotope content of pack ice, etc.). All thermometers have some time lag from the time of the sensing to the later time of reporting. All thermometer measurements report for a specific location and the readings can define a range of probably surrounding temperatures.

There are ways of determining the total average temperature of the entire biosphere and the measurements also tell us the level of accuracy range of the reading.

We should be in agreement with this, and anyone who's convinced that the biosphere's 1.5C hotter now than 1850 should have sufficiently accurate temperature readings for then and now.

We should be in agreement with this, and anyone who's convinced that the biosphere's 1.5C hotter now than 1850 should have sufficiently accurate temperature readings for then and now.[/QUOTE]
I think the best that can be shown is that, it has warmed a little, the margin of error is all over the place.
The difference in sampling methodology error alone could exceed the measurement.
 
So you are using numbers guessed by other people? What instrumentation was used? Who took the measurements and when? Where is the raw data?

Please understand I am not necessarily disputing your numbers, but I have a high standard for accepting data. There are lots of random numbers flying around that is considered 'data'.

This is how you measure the energy from the sun;

Get a black metal bucket of water with a lid. Put it outside in the shade untill it reaches the same temperature as the environment.

Then move it into the sunshine.

It will warm up.

Keep track of how the temperature changes over time.

This will allow you to calculate the thermal energy it is absobing from the sunshine.

You can repeat this for various angles that the sun is in the sky and thus work out how much of the sun's energy is being absorbed by the atmosphere at different angles of the sun going through it and thus different amounts of atmosphere between you and the sun.

Eventually with a lot of sums you will get a figure for how much energy (power really) there is in sunshine per unit cross sectional area. Then you can multiply that by the cross section of the earth. Job done.
 
We can and do measure earth surface temperatures and the measurements tell us not only the average temperature but also the standard deviation --the range of probable error.

This only measures the temperature of the atmosphere but the vast majority of the mass of the biosphere is water, but once again we can and do measure ocean temperatures and the number of readings of locations and depths tell us once again what average we can see and what the margin of error is.

So far there is neither a published consensus on the current average biospheric temperature nor the degree of accuracy --much less one for 1850. This could be done but it hasn't --one good reason why is the fact that it would most likely prove that there's no evidence to support the official 1.5C average temperature increase since 1850.

Nope. ITN is quite correct in stating that we cannot accurately measure the average temperature of the biosphere. This is because it is not possible to ensure that the thermometers are positioned so as to give a representative sample of the Earth's surface, and that's why you won't find any definitive figures for the average temperature of the Earth.

What you can measure with reasonable accuracy, though, is the change in temperature of the Earth. As I explained earlier, the average of the changes in the temperature (aka temperature anomalies) at a few hundred specific locations does give the average change in the temperature of the Earth to reasonable accuracy. This is precisely why we talk of temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures.
 
Nope. ITN is quite correct in stating that we cannot accurately measure the average temperature of the biosphere. This is because it is not possible to ensure that the thermometers are positioned so as to give a representative sample of the Earth's surface, and that's why you won't find any definitive figures for the average temperature of the Earth.

What you can measure with reasonable accuracy, though, is the change in temperature of the Earth. As I explained earlier, the average of the changes in the temperature (aka temperature anomalies) at a few hundred specific locations does give the average change in the temperature of the Earth to reasonable accuracy. This is precisely why we talk of temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures.

As long as the methodology remains exactly the same. No changing te paint on the weather stations, oops, and no changing the time the temperature is taken, oops, and no having the thermometers bottom out at -10, oops, and no changing in theland use around the station such as the university weather staion built in the fields round the back of the science building ending up in the middle of the car park for the new biology department, oops.

Or just generally oops...
 
As long as the methodology remains exactly the same. No changing te paint on the weather stations, oops, and no changing the time the temperature is taken, oops, and no having the thermometers bottom out at -10, oops, and no changing in theland use around the station such as the university weather staion built in the fields round the back of the science building ending up in the middle of the car park for the new biology department, oops.

Or just generally oops...

Changes such as those you mention are exactly the reason why old temperature readings are adjusted. A large part of the reconstruction of historical temperature records involves the development and use of various methods for correcting for such changes.
 
As long as the methodology remains exactly the same. No changing te paint on the weather stations, oops, and no changing the time the temperature is taken, oops, and no having the thermometers bottom out at -10, oops, and no changing in theland use around the station such as the university weather staion built in the fields round the back of the science building ending up in the middle of the car park for the new biology department, oops.

Or just generally oops...

Yep.

You can only accurately measure a change in a variable, when all others remain constant, or can be 100% accounted for.
 
Changes such as those you mention are exactly the reason why old temperature readings are adjusted. A large part of the reconstruction of historical temperature records involves the development and use of various methods for correcting for such changes.

There is no reason to adjust the old to the new, in fact it is impossible. The only proper way to do it would be to pick the readings of the new, to reflect the same time of the readings of the old. But that's not very accurate either, since the times of readings were not consistent.

Then all outside influences need to be 100% accounted for, and they don't have a proper model for that yet.

The sciences and data are not known well enough to make any solid claims of temperature anomalies, except by those of you with suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
 
Changes such as those you mention are exactly the reason why old temperature readings are adjusted. A large part of the reconstruction of historical temperature records involves the development and use of various methods for correcting for such changes.

Yet all those changes should make the old data warmer but somehow the past is always getting colder ...
 
Yep.

You can only accurately measure a change in a variable, when all others remain constant, or can be 100% accounted for.

Such things as tree lines show warming but they do not give the sort of flashy data that those who don't understand uncertainty and the level of innaccuracy in any data collection real world system has.
 
...we cannot accurately measure the average temperature of the biosphere...
OK, we agree that you guys can't measure the average temperature of the biosphere with any kind of accuracy.

Meanwhile the rest of us can, but us guys aren't saying it's rapidly getting dangerously hotter so it doesn't matter. We hear a lot of AGW advocates say that they got hot anomalies which are supposed be as bad as actual real life average temps, but as long as the average temps stay cool I'll stay cool also and vote against AGW tax hikes.

No matter how hot your anomalies get.
 
There is no reason to adjust the old to the new, in fact it is impossible. The only proper way to do it would be to pick the readings of the new, to reflect the same time of the readings of the old. But that's not very accurate either, since the times of readings were not consistent.

Then all outside influences need to be 100% accounted for, and they don't have a proper model for that yet.

The sciences and data are not known well enough to make any solid claims of temperature anomalies, except by those of you with suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Are you having trouble following the discussion? The reason to adjust the old readings is to compensate for changes such as those listed by Tim. It is perfectly possible to adjust historical readings to improve their accuracy using various statistical and comparative methods, and this is exactly what climate scientists do. If, for example, a jump in temperature occurs in one record when no such jump occurs in neighbouring records, this is an indication that the jump is an artefact and should be adjusted away.
 
Last edited:
Are you having trouble following the discussion? The reason to adjust the old readings is to compensate for changes such as those listed by Tim. It is perfectly possible to adjust historical readings to improve their accuracy using various statistical and comparative methods, and this is exactly what climate scientists do. If, for example, a jump in temperature occurs in one record when no such jump occurs in neighbouring records, this is an indication that the jump is an artefact and should be adjusted away.

Believe as you wish. Your confirmation bias is too strong for me.
 
That's because the solar energy is already absorbed above that point. Have to get pretty deep though, right?

Not really. Attenuation begins immediately. In clear tropical water, things are getting pretty dark at only 600 ft. By 3000 ft, it's completely dark. In the murkier waters of the north, attenuation occurs much more rapidly. Most ocean water is completely dark.
 
This is how you measure the energy from the sun;

Get a black metal bucket of water with a lid. Put it outside in the shade untill it reaches the same temperature as the environment.

Then move it into the sunshine.

It will warm up.

Keep track of how the temperature changes over time.

This will allow you to calculate the thermal energy it is absobing from the sunshine.

You can repeat this for various angles that the sun is in the sky and thus work out how much of the sun's energy is being absorbed by the atmosphere at different angles of the sun going through it and thus different amounts of atmosphere between you and the sun.

Eventually with a lot of sums you will get a figure for how much energy (power really) there is in sunshine per unit cross sectional area. Then you can multiply that by the cross section of the earth. Job done.

Won't work. You are measuring the energy absorbed by a bucket of water in sunlight, not the energy from the Sun. Much of the sun is reflected. Much of the sunlight the Earth receives is absorbed. Depending on the frequency, that absorption may not result in thermal energy at all. The Earth is not a bucket of water. It consists of deserts, oceans, ice, grass, jungle, etc. All have different emissivities. Most ocean water is too deep to absorb sunlight.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. We don't have enough thermometers for a 'bucket' as big as the Earth. Further, not all sunlight results in conversion to thermal energy.
 
Nope. ITN is quite correct in stating that we cannot accurately measure the average temperature of the biosphere. This is because it is not possible to ensure that the thermometers are positioned so as to give a representative sample of the Earth's surface, and that's why you won't find any definitive figures for the average temperature of the Earth.

What you can measure with reasonable accuracy, though, is the change in temperature of the Earth. As I explained earlier, the average of the changes in the temperature (aka temperature anomalies) at a few hundred specific locations does give the average change in the temperature of the Earth to reasonable accuracy. This is precisely why we talk of temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures.

Baserate fallacy. You can't measure a change without measuring an absolute value first.
 
As long as the methodology remains exactly the same. No changing te paint on the weather stations, oops, and no changing the time the temperature is taken, oops, and no having the thermometers bottom out at -10, oops, and no changing in theland use around the station such as the university weather staion built in the fields round the back of the science building ending up in the middle of the car park for the new biology department, oops.

Or just generally oops...

Generally correct. The thermometer only tells you the temperature AT the thermometer. Variances as much as 20 deg F per mile are not uncommon.
 
Back
Top Bottom