“The temperature of the Earth” is an ambiguous term that cannot mean anything.
At any given time, it is possible to measure the temperature of some very small part of the Earth, such as, perhaps, a shot glass of water.
At that same moment, other temperatures of the Earth that could be measured will show a variation from the temperature of molten rock (1,300 to 2,200°F) to polar ice (32 to -76°F).
Daily variation of the same place on Earth can be 50 to 60°F. Seasonal variation can be well over 100°F in high latitudes.
Conceptually, we could imagine, but not actually measure, every possible place and thing, at every possible time through all the seasons, and then average these data.
To detect “global warming,” we would have to modify these data to include the specific heat of everything measured, as well as the latent heat of all the things that change phase such as water, which appears as a liquid, vapor, and ice.
Conceptually, yes; actually, no. Not possible.
Atmospheric science is presumably the scientific study of the atmosphere. (I am proudly not an atmospheric scientist.) If you use the scientific method to study something, you might presume to call yourself a scientist.
Calling yourself a scientist does not give you the privilege of using bad data to reach fuzzy conclusions and then scare people with the latter.
These folks are looking for about a 1°C change in “the temperature of the Earth” over the course of 100 years.
If you just look at the thing they are trying to measure and the tools they are using to measure it (including the accuracy of thermometers 100 years ago), you can reasonably presume that this particular science is not very scientific.
On my kitchen wall are three thermometers. Two use technology vastly superior to what was available 100 years ago. The third one uses fairly old technology. They are 17 inches apart.
The room temperature is maintained by a state-of-the-art home heating system. As I write this, they read 68.0, 70.2, and 73. (Feel free to try this experiment at home.)
If atmospheric science is not science, what is it? It is the nearest thing to religion, particularly for the liberal secular humanists, atheists, and agnostics of the left.
It has a pretty close copy of the concept of original sin and drips with guilt. It is the lever that politicians on the left will use to change our economy, violate our constitution, and restrict our freedoms.
It is offered as the “big problem” that only “big government” or maybe “world government” can solve.
This stuff is “junk science.” These folks read ice core samples and tree rings the way fortune-tellers read tea leaves.
They start with the conclusion and search for evidence. Anybody who uses the term “settled science” doesn’t understand science. Science is never settled.
I was an engineer for 29 years. I have six patents in the field of heat transfer. My bet is that I have measured more temperatures and studied more heat transfer than your average atmospheric scientist.
I’m also a combat veteran and a member of the American middle class, which earns me the right to be skeptical of junk science as a policy reference. Every time these politicians have a “good idea,” I pay for it, one way or the other.
In the case of man-made climate change, don’t drink the Kool-Aid. The quality of life is directly proportional to the per capita use of energy.
Far from being a pollutant, carbon is essential to life on this planet. The most abundant forms of energy are still fossil fuels.
Federal meddling in the form of mandates and subsidies just distorts the market. If you want to see the economy grow, get big government out of the business of picking winners and losers in the energy field.
It is a moral issue. The fear of global warming is killing some people and making the lives of others wretched.
What will the useful idiots say when the lights go out? Can they virtue-signal in the dark?
Read more at American Thinker
Agree, and more.
What counts is not a single-number mean. Not even an obsession with altering data to make it ‘more accurate.’
What counts, if you want to know if there is abnormal warming, is the trend. And, importantly, not a linear trend driven by a mean…rather: the natural organic sine curve revealed when you spaghetti-chart millions of direct measurements over 120 years.
http://theearthintime.com
Like that.
Average global temperature is a absurdity. Average global temperature anomalies are absurdities compounded.
E.g. On my laptop the processor temperature can vary by 35 to 50°C (or more), however average temperature of the total laptop varies by less than 5°C. Now what can my average total laptop temperature tell me about the functionality of my laptop? Nothing! What can the total laptop’s temperature anomaly (temperature change) data tell me — even less than the averaged temperature.
If my laptop fans’ exhaust vents were blocked, the processor may destructively overheat, however the laptop’s total average temperature may only reach less than 5°C above ambient, and the total laptop’s temperature anomaly would show even less variation — which is not very useful and would not signal anything majorly was wrong.
Temperature, like climate is location specific! Earth’s average climate would be even more of an absurdity, yet climate ‘science’ attempt it with it’s “climate change attribution” ideas. Temperature (at any location) is only one of many natural processes and influences that determine the climate at a site or region.
I recall someone in the field (I unfortunately forget who) once said that finding the average planetary temperature was equal in academic effort to calculating the average global telephone number. I think Mr. Powlas has explained very clearly why this is so. Another huge factor in this analysis, if you consider time in much longer spans than centuries–which we must where it concerns climate–is plate tectonics.
The Earth’s surface plates are constantly in motion, in some locations up to six inches per year, but generally only 3/4 to 1-1/2 inches annually. These plates shift in specific directions for millions of years, and as they do entire mountain ranges and ocean basins change lattitudes and alter ocean currents. This geographic reorganization of the planet definitely changes the climatic pattern on a global scale, especially at times when alpine conditions prevail at low lattitudes which enable ice build-up to be far more significant than at present. At other times, the continents arrange themselves such that mid-lattitude ocean currents flow steadily around the planet with little impedence. If you consider the last half-billion years of reality, the average planetary temperature, as much as one might be gauged, probably varies twenty degrees C, correcting for seasonal variability.
On a shorter time scale, optimal global temperature only has relevance to what people think is best for their own needs, even with scientific evience in hand to support their position. It can only be a snapshot in time and cannot represent what is “normal” for the planet.