Perspectives on Temperature

[Into the Night]

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.

You cannot use cooked data in statistical analysis. It is useless. No analysis has been run yet. There is nothing to correct by. You cannot use the output of an analysis as it's own input! You can't even use it for the next time you perform an analysis.

Raw data MUST be used. Selection MUST occur by randN. That means if a point is selected, it must be ONCE and only ONCE. Not twice, not 0.7 times, ONCE.

 

[Into the Night]

Yep.

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

All temperature measurements are data, dude. None of them are constants.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Won't work. A moment in time is not the same as any other moment in time. We don't have time machines.

But that's not very accurate either, since the times of readings were not consistent.

They are not even the same at all. They never can be. We can't travel through time.

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

All measurements are data. No measurement results in a constant.

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.

Psychoquackery. There is no such effect. This bit of psychoquackery was created to make an insult sound like one was analyzing a mental patient.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Tree lines? Do you mean tree rings?

 

[Into the Night]

OK, we agree that you guys can't measure the average temperature of the biosphere with any kind of accuracy.

Correct. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Meanwhile the rest of us can,

Care to explain your magick method?

 

[Into the Night]

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,

Math error. You can't use a statistical output as its own input. You can't use a statistical output to adjust any other statistical input. No statistical analysis can affected by other that may be been run. Outputs are not inputs. Outputs are not data. They are summaries.

and this is exactly what climate scientists do.

Which is one of the reasons why climate 'scientists' deny mathematics, just like you 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.

WRONG. Is the anomaly due to a stuck gauge? A communications fault? It might all be real data, and it's ALL significant. You can't just throw it out any piece of data BEFORE you select data for analysis. Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to use raw data.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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.

Absorbed by 600 ft? Now that depends on what percentage of absorption you use to determine that.

My point is that the shortwave energy is absorbed deeper than longwave, and is thus 100% absorbed. The spectra of CO2 radiant energy is absorbed in the first few microns of depth. Therefore, most of it ends up being radiated back upward rather than warming the waters.

I don't remember without looking it up, but I believe the 600 ft point you speak of is the 50% absorption. That would mean by 1,200 ft, 75% is absorbed. 87.5% by 1,800 ft. etc. etc.

Even if my memory is off by a bit, the point is that shortwave and longwave react very, very different in the oceans.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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.

Then just use a damn bolometer.

 

[Into the Night]

Absorbed by 600 ft? Now that depends on what percentage of absorption you use to determine that.

50%.

My point is that the shortwave energy is absorbed deeper than longwave, and is thus 100% absorbed.

Irrelevant. Both wavelengths are 100% absorbed.

The spectra of CO2 radiant energy is absorbed in the first few microns of depth.

it is not absorbed at all. Absorption will not take place if the atom or molecule absorbing the photon has more energy than the photon. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

Therefore, most of it ends up being radiated back upward rather than warming the waters.

WRONG. If CO2 radiance is not absorbed, it is reflected, not radiated.

I don't remember without looking it up, but I believe the 600 ft point you speak of is the 50% absorption. That would mean by 1,200 ft, 75% is absorbed. 87.5% by 1,800 ft. etc. etc.

The 600 ft point is accurate. Absorption of light below that is not linear.

Even if my memory is off by a bit, the point is that shortwave and longwave react very, very different in the oceans.

Irrelevant. Both are absorbed, as long as the longwave has sufficient energy.

 

[Into the Night]

Then just use a damn bolometer.

Won't work. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The emissivity of the bolometer is unspecified.

 

[Surface Detail]

Believe as you wish. Your confirmation bias is too strong for me.

It has nothing to do with belief. I explained succinctly why and how adjustments are made to historical temperature readings. If you disagree with any aspects of my explanation, please explain why. Otherwise I'll assume your grudging acceptance.

 

[Tim the plumber]

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.

You are clueless beyond words.

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot]UHI[/FONT]
[h=1]The Climate Sciences Use Of The Urban Heat Island Effect Is Pathetic And Misleading[/h][FONT=&quot]By Geoffrey H Sherrington, Spinal Tap’s Nigel Tufnel demonstrates his hifi speakers are louder because the numbers all go to 11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o Scientific control knobs for climate change have to be used with more care. ABSTRACT. The ‘urban heat island’ arises because air temperatures measured in urban cities can be different to those of the…
[/FONT]

 

[Surface Detail]

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/20/the-science-of-the-urban-heat-island-effect-is-pathetic-and-misleading/"]

[/URL]UHI[/FONT]
[h=1]The Climate Sciences Use Of The Urban Heat Island Effect Is Pathetic And Misleading[/h][FONT="]By Geoffrey H Sherrington, Spinal Tap’s Nigel Tufnel demonstrates his hifi speakers are louder because the numbers all go to 11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o Scientific control knobs for climate change have to be used with more care. ABSTRACT. The ‘urban heat island’ arises because air temperatures measured in urban cities can be different to those of the…
[/FONT]

The headline doesn't even make grammatical sense. Bit of a red flag, that!

 

[Jack Hays]

The headline doesn't even make grammatical sense. Bit of a red flag, that!

The subject is "use" and the verb is "is." Not a problem.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]The Pause Deniers Are Back – More Than 200 Peer Reviewed Studies Are Wrong[/h]Posted on 20 Dec 18 by JAIME JESSOP • 2 Comments
That’s basically how Roger Pielke Jr. describes the latest effort to erase the Pause, or Hiatus, or Slowdown. New study claims that more than 200 peer-reviewed climate science papers are fatally flawed & the result of “political pressure from climate contrarians” https://t.co/UqU5r1Hq9X — Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) December 19, 2018 The New Left Wing … Continue readi

 

[Lord of Planar]

It has nothing to do with belief. I explained succinctly why and how adjustments are made to historical temperature readings. If you disagree with any aspects of my explanation, please explain why. Otherwise I'll assume your grudging acceptance.

I have explained why. I'm sorry you deny anything reasonable that is against your religion.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The headline doesn't even make grammatical sense. Bit of a red flag, that!

Any excuse to avoid reading something that might shake your religion...

 

[Into the Night]

It has nothing to do with belief. I explained succinctly why and how adjustments are made to historical temperature readings. If you disagree with any aspects of my explanation, please explain why. Otherwise I'll assume your grudging acceptance.

I already explained why. Why do you insist on people repeating themselves? Can't you pay attention long enough the first time? You can't adjust the data. Raw data must be used. 'Adjusting' the data is manufacturing data.

 

[Into the Night]

I have explained why. I'm sorry you deny anything reasonable that is against your religion.

True. You have. His religion compels him to ignore your explanation (or mine!) and ask for it again and again.

 

[Buzz]

Any excuse to avoid reading something that might shake your religion...

Hey Lord... did you ever get around to actually reading the methodologies and associated papers concerning adjustments to any of the major temperature records?

I'll bet you haven't.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hey Lord... did you ever get around to actually reading the methodologies and associated papers concerning adjustments to any of the major temperature records?

I'll bet you haven't.

I have. None address my concerns. I have repeatedly asked for someone to provide me with one that does, but all you guys have failed to.

 

[Buzz]

I have. None address my concerns. I have repeatedly asked for someone to provide me with one that does, but all you guys have failed to.

The fact that you are still lying about whether or not you have been shown the methodologies is enough to convince me you still haven't read any of them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The fact that you are still lying about whether or not you have been shown the methodologies is enough to convince me you still haven't read any of them.

Yes, I have been shown methodologies, and you guys are too uneducated on these sciences to understand.

 

[Buzz]

Yes, I have been shown methodologies,

Great... so I can take this to mean you are going to finally quit repeating the lie that you have never been shown these methodologies.

and you guys are too uneducated on these sciences to understand.

Not only is this more BS it is highly insulting as well!! The fact of the matter is that for you to actually back up your belief that the different temperature records are not being correctly adjusted would require you to actually read and understand those methodologies. But you are not really willing to do this. The truth is that you are too lazy to do that much reading and this is why you resort to lies and insults instead of actually supporting your beliefs with facts and logic.