╌>

‘Global Temperature’ — Why Should We Trust A Statistic That Might Not Even Exist?

  
Via:  Nerm_L  •  5 years ago  •  88 comments


‘Global Temperature’ — Why Should We Trust A Statistic That Might Not Even Exist?
Discussions on global warming often refer to ‘global temperature.’ Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility,

Sponsored by group News Viners

News Viners

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



he United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is quite certain Earth will be in trouble if the global temperature exceeds pre-industrial levels by 1.5 degrees Celsius or more. But how can anyone know? According to university research, “global temperature” is a meaningless concept.

“Discussions on global warming often refer to ‘global temperature.’ Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility,” says Science Daily, paraphrasing Bjarne Andresen, a professor at the University of Copenhagen’s Niels Bohr Institute, one of three authors of a paper questioning the “validity of a ‘global temperature.'”

Science Daily   explains how the “global temperature” is determined .

“The temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.”

But a “temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system,” says Andresen. The climate is not regulated by a single temperature. Instead, “differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate”.

While it’s “possible to treat temperature statistically locally,” says Science Daily, “it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless.”

There are two ways to measure temperature: geometrically and mathematically. They can produce a large enough difference to show a four-degree gap, which is sufficient to drive “all the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc.,” according to Science Daily. 

So if global temperature is unknowable, how can the IPCC and the entire industry of alarmists and activists be so sure there exists a threshold we cannot pass? Of course the IPCC says it knows the unknowable. In its latest report, released this month, it yet again maintained that the global temperature must “ kept to well below 2ºC, if not 1.5 o C ” above pre-industrial levels to avoid disaster.

A few years after the University of Copenhagen report was published, University of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick, one of the report’s authors,   noted in another paper   that “number of weather stations providing data . . . plunged in 1990 and again in 2005. The sample size has fallen by over 75% from its peak in the early 1970s, and is now smaller than at any time since 1919.”

“There are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy-sensitive applications.”

The global warming alarmists, who have seized and now control the narrative — because, like a child who won’t stop crying for a toy he can’t have, they refuse give up — have a credibility problem. Actually, they have several. The public will eventually forget about them all, though, just as it has overlooked the mistakes by those who predicted other catastrophes that never arrived, such as Y2K, the new Ice Age, acid rain, mass human starvation, overpopulation, peak oil, and the Silent Spring.

After all, humans have been watching Doomsday prophets fail throughout history. They’ve been so common we hardly notice them.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Nerm_L    5 years ago

Political agendas are rarely supported by common sense.  The scientific consensus has been pursuing a marketing gimmick rather than sound science.

That's why climate change is likely to be worse than any of the predictions.  That's also why we will be woefully unprepared for what is to come.  Science has led us down a primrose path built upon false assumptions, marketing gimmicks, and political science.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Nerm_L @1    5 years ago

Very true!

And if one is the least skeptical of these mostly false claims, they are labeled as a denier, anti-science, and downright deplorable. And they say the oceans are warming up, but they never bother to say, where, when, how much, and at what depth.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @1    5 years ago

I don't think anyone really denies the climate is changing because the climate is always changing. It's a dynamic system. What I have serious doubts about is our ability to actually predict what it will be in the future. The climate is almost impossibly complex. We often get much simpler systems wrong. A lot. So, when I hear that 97% of climate scientists say their models say the Earth is in trouble I absolutely 100% believe their models say the Earth is in trouble. I just don't know if reality reflects the same thing. Their models are models, not the actual climate. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
1.2.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2    5 years ago
I don't think anyone really denies the climate is changing because the climate is always changing. It's a dynamic system. What I have serious doubts about is our ability to actually predict what it will be in the future. The climate is almost impossibly complex. We often get much simpler systems wrong. A lot. So, when I hear that 97% of climate scientists say their models say the Earth is in trouble I absolutely 100% believe their models say the Earth is in trouble. I just don't know if reality reflects the same thing. Their models are models, not the actual climate. 

The Earth doesn't have a uniform climate.  And we know that climate is really nothing more than an average of regional weather.

So, we need to be observing how regional weather is changing.  And different regions will be influenced by different causes for changes in weather.  There isn't a one size fits all solution.

Pointless arguments over meaningless information like global average temperature only distracts us from addressing the problem on a regional basis, which is what is going to be required.  CO2 will affect some regions more than others.  Changes in land and water use can also affect regional weather.  There are a host of factors that can influence a region's weather (and climate).  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.2.2  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @1.2.1    5 years ago
So, we need to be observing how regional weather is changing.  And different regions will be influenced by different causes for changes in weather.  There isn't a one size fits all solution.

Yep. I just read this was the hottest July yet. Well, not where I live. This has been the coolest in years. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  Tessylo    5 years ago

WE should trust the 97%+ scientists and our own eyes that this is happening.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @2    5 years ago
WE should trust the 97%+ scientists and our own eyes that this is happening.  

Political scientists aren't really scientists.  Political scientists develop marketing gimmicks based upon statistics.  Political scientists attempt to separate belief from reality.

The 97% of climate scientists are competing with each other for research grants.  Do not ignore the influence of money on the consensus.  There really is a vested interest for convincing politicians to provide more funding for their particular research.  And much of that publicly funded science won't mitigate climate change because it isn't applied science.

All natural processes on Earth (weather, water cycle, even the carbon cycle) are driven by regional differences in thermodynamics.  There cannot be any such thing as a global temperature.  Climate change is really about altering the regional thermodynamics that either increases or decreases thermodynamic differences between regions.  And human activity has resulted in establishing microclimates within regions.  A global temperature doesn't tell us anything meaningful about what is happening thermodynamically.

Climate change is a political hoax.  Yes, we can readily observe that climatic conditions are changing.  But the science has only identified that after the fact.  Basic science isn't conducting the type of research that is needed and basic science certainly isn't providing any results that will mitigate what is happening. 

We've been lied to and we are going to pay the price for those lies. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1    5 years ago

They're not 'political scientists'.  They're scientists.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.2  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.1    5 years ago
They're not 'political scientists'.  They're scientists.  

Naivete can be charming.  In this case naivete will be dangerous.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1    5 years ago

And they can't explain why it was so hot back in the 1930's....and then cooled.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1    5 years ago
The 97% of climate scientists are competing with each other for research grants. 

In which country? You are aware that 97% includes scientists in other countries, yes? If they are competing for grant money it doesn't change the data that they collect. 

All natural processes on Earth (weather, water cycle, even the carbon cycle) are driven by regional differences in thermodynamics.

False. Finding an average is really easy, 4th grade math. Also, you are missing the word, "trends". 

The problem with stories like that is that we see them all the time now. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.5  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.4    5 years ago
False. Finding an average is really easy, 4th grade math. Also, you are missing the word, "trends". 

Yes, calculating an average is really easy.  It's possible to calculate average citrus production in the United States.  But a storm in Montana won't affect the average citrus production, would it?

Just because an average can be calculated doesn't mean the result provides useful information.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.5    5 years ago
It's possible to calculate average citrus production in the United States.

Poor comparison when we are talking about GLOBAL temperatures of which there is far more data points. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1.7  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.3    5 years ago
And they can't explain why it was so hot back in the 1930's....and then cooled.

Yes, science can explain why it was hot in the 1930s and then cooled.  But science cannot explain that event with global averages.

The point is that global average temperature isn't providing useful information about climate change.  Global average temperature is a marketing gimmick that is useful for political posturing.

That doesn't mean the problem of climate change isn't real or isn't significant.  We have a real problem.  We need to prepare for that problem and find ways to mitigate that problem.  But science has devoted so much effort toward political pandering that we aren't doing anything meaningful.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1.8  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.6    5 years ago

There is no way to verify the validly of the data. One way the data is "fudged" is rounding up fractional readings on the thermometers. Also, remember that many of these readings are made in "heat island" cities and at airports, with their large amounts of heat retaining concrete.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.7    5 years ago
The point is that global average temperature isn't providing useful information about climate change. 

What makes more sense with regards to measuring global average temperatures;

A) Taking temperatures all over the planet, establishing an average that scientists can compare year to year, or;

B) Taking temperatures in one area, (say the USA), and using that to generate a global average temperature scientists can compare year to year?

More data means more accuracy. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.8    5 years ago
Also, remember that many of these readings are made in "heat island" cities and at airports, with their large amounts of heat retaining concrete.

Scientists are well aware of this and avoid it to provide more accuracy.

One way the data is "fudged" is rounding up fractional readings on the thermometers.

Since the vast majority of these temps are recorded with a digital thermometer, and then read with a laptop, (or other device), they don't "round up" or down for that matter. 

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
2.1.11  Freefaller  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.2    5 years ago
In this case naivete will be dangerous.

As will be paranoia and ignorance

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    5 years ago
That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless.

What a crappy analogy.   It makes no sense under any circumstance to average a phone number.  A phone number is not a 'number', it is a numeric string.   The average phone number on its own is entirely meaningless.   Average temperature, in contrast, is not meaningless.  Temperature is a quantity and is subject to arithmetic.   

Calculating the average world temperature is like calculating the average stock price.   That would be a better analogy.   The argument then is that the average stock price is largely a meaningless number.   The counter-argument is examples such as the DOW (average stock price for carefully chosen measurements).

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3    5 years ago
What a crappy analogy.   It makes no sense under any circumstance to average a phone number.  A phone number is not a 'number', it is a numeric string.   The average phone number on its own is entirely meaningless.   Average temperature, in contrast, is not meaningless.  Temperature is a quantity and is subject to arithmetic.

The phone book analogy an example of mathematical manipulation providing a meaningless result.  Global average temperature is also a meaningless result of mathematical manipulation.

Calculating the average world temperature is like calculating the average stock price.   That would be a better analogy.   The argument then is that the average stock price is largely a meaningless number.   The counter-argument is examples such as the DOW (average stock price for carefully chosen measurements).

Calculating global average temperature is more like calculating global average population density.  The result doesn't provide useful information about actual conditions.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1    5 years ago
The phone book analogy an example of mathematical manipulation providing a meaningless result.  Global average temperature is also a meaningless result of mathematical manipulation.

Um, no. Here is how you calculate an average...

74+36=110

110 divided by 2= 55

More data means more accuracy, right? 

So say we have 5,000 temp readings from various points around the Earth, we get the average and compare it year to year. Seriously, this is really basic stuff. It's not complex at all. I have no idea how many data points we use to get a global temp average, but using 5k as a "guestimate", even if 100 of those are fake, the change in the data would be very small. 

This article, it seems to me, is someone throwing something at a wall to see what will stick so that have a talking point against AGW. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    5 years ago
that have a talking point against AGW. 

*they*

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1    5 years ago
The phone book analogy an example of mathematical manipulation providing a meaningless result.  Global average temperature is also a meaningless result of mathematical manipulation.

Given this, I would have typed what I just wrote.   You made no argument, just repeated the article's unsubstantiated claim that global average temperature is meaningless.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    5 years ago

So...where or when do you put the baseline or starting point.

Fairly accurate readings have only occurred in about the last hundred years.

And climate change advocates have not tried to hide the fact that they manipulate the data. Remember the "hockey sticks" scandal?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.4    5 years ago
And climate change advocates have not tried to hide the fact that they manipulate the data. Remember the "hockey sticks" scandal?

A minuscule blip on the radar. Had literally no effect on the data as a whole. 

Fairly accurate readings have only occurred in about the last hundred years.

I think that you would agree that 100 years of data is a LOT of data and that data proves, with very little doubt that GW is a reality. 

You can point to one or maybe even two times that someone was caught "fudging" data, but that doesn't change reality. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.6  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.3    5 years ago
Given this, I would have typed what I just wrote.   You made no argument, just repeated the article's unsubstantiated claim that global average temperature is meaningless.

Global average conditions on Jupiter won't explain the red spot.  Global average conditions on Earth won't explain regional phenomena, either.

Global averages won't provide meaningful information.

The climate on Earth is not uniform; different regions experience completely different climates.  Changes in climate will not be globally uniform either.  Averaging temperatures around the Earth won't provide information that is any more useful than averaging phone numbers.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.6    5 years ago
Averaging temperatures around the Earth won't provide information that is any more useful than averaging phone numbers.

Repeating the same claim is not helpful.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.8  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.7    5 years ago
Repeating the same claim is not helpful.

What useful information does global average temperature tell us?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.8    5 years ago
What useful information does global average temperature tell us?

That the planet is getting warmer much faster than it would if there were no humans? 

Only a fool would think that 7 BILLION people don't have an effect on the planet. Again, it's very simple....

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes, it's undisputed and we have known it for decades. 

As we get more and more people, what do we do? Cut down forests/remove flora to create living space and in turn, create more CO2 to support more humans, (fossil fuels, manufacturing, clothing, etc...the list is almost endless). How is CO2 removed from the atmosphere? Plants, trees, grass, etc..they thrive on CO2 and in return, we get breathable oxygen. 

The moral of the story?

We, (as a species), are generating ridiculous levels of CO2 gas that goes into the atmosphere while at the same time, decreasing our ability to get rid of it. 

Also...more CO2 gas means that the Earth gets warmer. That's why it's called a greenhouse gas. Which means ice melts more, oceans get warmer which means more algae grows, which is darker which absorbs more heat making the oceans even warmer, which kills fish that we humans eat. 

Snowball effect and it's happening RIGHT now, all over the planet. If you want to quibble about how global temps mean nothing, go for it, it doesn't change reality. 

Just as a reference? 7 billion people on Earth...

  • Seven billion seconds is about 221 and a half years.
  • Seven billion pennies stacked on top of each other would make a tower almost 6,090 miles high.
  • If you earn $45,000 a year, it would take 154,000 years to amass a fortune of seven billion dollars.
 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.10  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.9    5 years ago
That the planet is getting warmer much faster than it would if there were no humans? 

Really?  The only thing a uniformly warmer planet would indicate is that the sun has changed.  But we know the planet has not warmed uniformly.  So, a uniform increase in the average doesn't really tell us anything about non-uniform heating of the planet.  

Only a fool would think that 7 BILLION people don't have an effect on the planet. Again, it's very simple....

The 7 billion people are not dispersed uniformly around the planet.  Only a fool would think that highly variable concentrations of population would result in uniform heating of the planet.  

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes, it's undisputed and we have known it for decades. 

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  So is water.  We also know that human water use has changed dramatically since the industrial revolution, too.

We also know about other greenhouse gases like sulfur dioxide, the various nitrogen oxides, ammonia, and synthetic chemicals like freon.

The point is that human influence on the land surface and atmosphere encompasses far more than CO2 emissions.  Even the IPCC acknowledges that atmospheric CO2 is a small contributor to planetary warming.  Humans are engaged in a wide variety of activities that affect the water cycle; from changes in water use to emission of pollutants.

Also...more CO2 gas means that the Earth gets warmer. That's why it's called a greenhouse gas. Which means ice melts more, oceans get warmer which means more algae grows, which is darker which absorbs more heat making the oceans even warmer, which kills fish that we humans eat. 

The example of a runaway greenhouse effect is Vensus.  But that runaway greenhouse effect wasn't caused by methane or CO2; it was caused by vaporization of water.  Without water in the Venusian atmosphere, Venus would be more like Mars.

Just as a reference? 7 billion people on Earth...

Then climate change is a self correcting problem.  Changing climatic conditions around the world will kill off large numbers of humans and dead humans can't affect the climate.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.1.11  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.10    5 years ago
Really?  The only thing a uniformly warmer planet would indicate is that the sun has changed. 

LOL! Ok, sure... whatever. 

But we know the planet has not warmed uniformly.  So, a uniform increase in the average doesn't really tell us anything about non-uniform heating of the planet.  

Of course it hasn't. The average global temp doesn't mean that the entire planet has the same temp over the entire globe. 

Pick a point on the planet...say in a desert.. The average temp for that day at that point is say....80 degrees. Another point on the planet...in a cold area, where the average temp for that day that point is 30 degrees. 

20 years later, the new average for these two places is now, 1 degree warmer. 31 and 81 degrees. When this average occurs over the entire planet, it's evidence that something is wrong. 

Also, I think you are confusing weather with climate. Huge difference. 

The 7 billion people are not dispersed uniformly around the planet.  Only a fool would think that highly variable concentrations of population would result in uniform heating of the planet.  

Makes no difference at all, the amount of resources consumed is going to be the same no matter how you stack them. 

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  So is water. 

Water also falls from the sky, CO2? Not so much. Another poor comparison. 

We also know that human water use has changed dramatically since the industrial revolution, too.

All the water that is on the Earth now? Was here when the dinos were alive. I am seriously trying to figure out how you are linking water to AGW.. 

Then climate change is a self correcting problem.  Changing climatic conditions around the world will kill off large numbers of humans and dead humans can't affect the climate.

Or we could just do things to decrease the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. 

Since you brought it up.. The Sun... 

It puts out more energy in 1 second than mankind has ever produced. If you add it all up, from mankind's first fires to nuke plants, it still doesn't match 1 second of the suns output. In fact, it's not even close. If we could capture all of the suns energy for just 2 seconds, mankind would have all the power it could possibly use for the next 10,000 years. But the denier crowd insists that solar energy is a waste of time. It's just plain dumb. (And I am not aiming that at you Nerm, I know you are not dumb). 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.12  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.11    5 years ago
Also, I think you are confusing weather with climate. Huge difference. 

Climate is weather observation over a period of time.  Climate change really does indicate a shift in weather patterns over a period of time.

Water also falls from the sky, CO2? Not so much. Another poor comparison. 

CO2 falls from the sky, too.  That's why rainwater is acidic.  

The carbon cycle works by removing carbon from the atmosphere and replenishing carbon in the atmosphere.  

All the water that is on the Earth now? Was here when the dinos were alive. I am seriously trying to figure out how you are linking water to AGW.. 

Dinosaurs didn't use spray irrigation.  Burning one gallon of gasoline will produce one gallon of water.  Burning fossil fuels doesn't just emit CO2, water is also emitted.  Fossil fuels sequester both carbon and hydrogen.  

Or we could just do things to decrease the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. 

Something like eliminating international aircraft flights over the North Atlantic.  That might actually do more to prevent melting Greenland ice than installing solar panels in California.  And it doesn't require any investment to stop flying over the North Atlantic.  

But then climate change is really about spending more money, isn't it?

It puts out more energy in 1 second than mankind has ever produced. If you add it all up, from mankind's first fires to nuke plants, it still doesn't match 1 second of the suns output. In fact, it's not even close. If we could capture all of the suns energy for just 2 seconds, mankind would have all the power it could possibly use for the next 10,000 years. But the denier crowd insists that solar energy is a waste of time. It's just plain dumb. (And I am not aiming that at you Nerm, I know you are not dumb). 

And the beauty of solar panels is they provide electricity at point of use without need for a grid or logistics.  Solar panels eliminate the need for infrastructure.

Utility scale solar that remains dependent upon infrastructure really is a dumb idea that negates the greatest advantage of solar energy.  Solar farms is one of the stupidest ideas being promoted as a solution for climate change. 

The idea of solar farms is politically consistent with the idea of global average temperature.  Costly, meaningless, and a stupid waste of resources.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.13  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.7    5 years ago
Repeating the same claim is not helpful.

Then let's let science explain it.  Temperature doesn't tell us anything about heat content of air, we also need to know humidity.  The most common measure of reported heat content is the heat index.

512

An air temperature of 82 deg @ 90% relative humidity contains the same amount of heat as an air temperature of 90 deg @ 40% relative humidity.  Neither of those conditions are warmer than the other.

An air temperature of 82 deg @ 70% relative humidity is warmer than an air temperature of 82 deg @ 40% relative humidity.  Temperature alone won't tell us that one condition is warmer than the other.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.13    5 years ago
Temperature doesn't tell us anything about heat content of air, we also need to know humidity.  The most common measure of reported heat content is the heat index.

Nerm, the heat index is not the heat content in the air, it is the effective temperature (how the actual temperature feels to us) based on how the human body cools itself.   High humidity reduces the efficacy of perspiration and thus diminishes the human body's ability to cool itself.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.15  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.14    5 years ago
Nerm, the heat index is not the heat content in the air, it is the effective temperature (how the actual temperature feels to us) based on how the human body cools itself.   High humidity reduces the efficacy of perspiration and thus diminishes the human body's ability to cool itself.

The effective temperature is directly related to the combined sensible and latent heat content of moist air.  That's why lower temperatures at higher humidity feels like higher temperatures at lower humidity.  The body loses heat at the same rate under both conditions; therefore, both conditions feel the same.  

A dry bulb temperature measurement of moist air only measures the sensible heat content of the air and does not provide information about the latent heat content of air.  Without humidity information there isn't any way to determine the heat contained in moist air; we don't know if the air at a given temperature is warmer or cooler.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.15    5 years ago

HVAC (Heating, Venting and Air-Conditioning) engineering principles apply when trying to achieve creature comfort.   We were not discussing how to keep human beings at a comfortable effective temperature;  we were discussing the surface temperature at locations on the planet.  

( Mixing apples and orangutans produces nonsense. )

What I noted @3.1.14 is what I would repeat here.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.17  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.16    5 years ago
HVAC (Heating, Venting and Air-Conditioning) engineering principles apply when trying to achieve creature comfort.   We were not discussing how to keep human beings at a comfortable effective temperature;  we were discussing the surface temperature at locations on the planet

Thermodynamics is thermodynamics.  The fundamental scientific principles are the same.  At least HVAC engineers are applying thermodynamics correctly while climate scientists are not.

Surface temperatures alone are not informative about planetary warming when the atmosphere contains water.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.17    5 years ago

Full baffle with bullshit mode.   Clearly you are doing this intentionally so no point in my continuing to explain this.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.19  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.18    5 years ago
Full baffle with bullshit mode.   Clearly you are doing this intentionally so no point in my continuing to explain this.

You've provided no science based defense of global average temperature.  As I have explained, global average temperature is thermodynamically indefensible.

Thermodynamics isn't bullshit.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.19    5 years ago
You've provided no science based defense of global average temperature. 

The global average temperature is a summary metric.   It is equivalent to the value of the DOW (the analogy I gave @3).   In both cases a single number is used, over time, to indicate a macro trend.

Climate science deals with the details underlying the summary metric.   Just like stock market analysis deals with the details underlying the DJIA.   


Also, read what Tacos! wrote @9.1.5 because we are essentially saying the same thing to you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.19    5 years ago
Thermodynamics isn't bullshit. 

Strawman.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.22  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.21    5 years ago
Strawman.

No, the strawman was @3.3.16

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.23  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.20    5 years ago
The global average temperature is a summary metric.   It is equivalent to the value of the DOW (the analogy I gave @3).   In both cases a single number is used, over time, to indicate a macro trend.  

The DJIA does show a trend for the DJIA.  The DJIA doesn't provide useful information about particular stocks.  The DJIA doesn't provide useful information about the broader economy.  The historical data of the DJIA is readily available and provides a simple metric.  But the DJIA doesn't correspond to anything meaningful.

Climate science deals with the details underlying the summary metric.   Just like stock market analysis deals with the details underlying the DJIA.

But stock market analysis deals with individual stocks.  And the DJIA doesn't provide useful information for analyzing individual stocks.

The DJIA trends are really used as a marketing tool to sell stock in index funds.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.22    5 years ago

Global warming is not about how the surface temperature of the planet feels to the human body as you argued @3.1.13.  

As I noted @3.1.14, your argument is nonsense.   How the temperature feels (affects) human beings and our ability to cool ourselves via perspiration has nothing whatsoever to do with global warming or climate change.   It is ridiculous for you to put that out here and it is telling that you continue this charade.

This is an example of why I have little patience with your potentially good discussions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.23    5 years ago
The DJIA doesn't provide useful information about particular stocks. 

As if I argued that it did?   Not only are you stating the obvious, you are illustrating that the DJIA is used as a macro trend as I stated.    

But stock market analysis deals with individual stocks.  And the DJIA doesn't provide useful information for analyzing individual stocks.

Again, as if I claimed otherwise?   The DJIA yields a macro trend (sound familiar?):

TiG @3.1.20 In both cases a single number is used, over time, to indicate a macro trend.

The analysis is indeed done in terms of lower level data (e.g. stock prices, current events, demand, pending legislation, etc.).   Similarly, climate science deals with the details underlying average temperature.   That was the point I was making with this seemingly clear language:   

TiG @3.1.20 Climate science deals with the details underlying the summary metric.   Just like stock market analysis deals with the details underlying the DJIA.   

Restating what I wrote followed —in non sequitur fashion— with mere redeclaration that 'AGT is meaningless' is not an argument.   

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.26  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.24    5 years ago
As I noted @3.1.14, your argument is nonsense.   How the temperature feels (affects) human beings and our ability to cool ourselves via perspiration has nothing whatsoever to do with global warming or climate change.   It is ridiculous for you to put that out here and it is telling that you continue this charade.

You are only pointing out that humans possess the ability to sense the heat content of moist air that thermometers do not possess.

At any given temperature, moist air contains more heat than dry air.  A thermometer does not have the capability of determining whether the air is moist or dry.  An increasing temperature trend can't tell us the atmosphere contains less heat over time.  And a decreasing temperature trend can't tell us the atmosphere contains more heat over time.  In fact, temperature trends can't tell us anything about heat content of the atmosphere.  Trends in average global temperature can't really tell us if the planet is warming or cooling.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.27  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.25    5 years ago
As if I argued that it did?   Not only are you stating the obvious, you are illustrating that the DJIA is used as a macro trend as I stated.    

Then the whole point of the DOW analogy was to introduce a strawman.

My contention is that global average temperature doesn't provide meaningful information.  Of course its possible to monitor any metric and follow a trend.  Naturally its possible to average any metric, too.

But the ability to average any metric and follow the trend of the average does not validate the usefulness of the metric.  It would be possible to monitor the global average price of rice and statistically correlate that metric to rainfall.  But that doesn't validate the utility of the trend in global average price of rice as an indicator of changes in rainfall.

The analysis is indeed done in terms of lower level data(e.g. stock prices, current events, demand, pending legislation, etc.).   Similarly, climate science deals with the details underlying average temperature.   That was the point I was making with this seemingly clear language:   

But that need for lower level data directly indicates that trends in DJIA aren't useful for the analysis.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.26    5 years ago
You are only pointing out that humans possess the ability to sense the heat content of moist air that thermometers do not possess.

More than that.   Heat content is a function of the body in which it is measured.   The larger the body, the more potential heat content.   And in air, the more humidity, the more potential heat content.   Those are basics.   Where you go wrong is to try to apply these basics to measure the heat content of the planet.   Temperature measures the average heat in a body.   If we focus on air as the body (for the moment), as the humidity rises there is a potential for the air to hold more heat.   If it does, and this is the key point, the temperature rises.    The temperature reflects what we are looking for;  the temperature measurement reflects average heat.   Global average temperature reflects the heat on the planet.   Over time, the global average temperature shows the planetary trend — the average heat content of the entire body (the planet).

A thermometer does not have the capability of determining whether the air is moist or dry. 

It does not need to.   Indeed, that would skew the measurements.   A thermometer measures the average heat and does not need to determine the heat content of the body it is measuring.   Note that thermometers also do not measure the size or shape of the body.   There is no need to do this.   Plus going beyond temperature would be counter productive to the intent.


Simple summary:   

To measure the heat content of the planet directly would require measuring the heat content of every body carrying heat and adding this up.   That, Nerm, is impossible and unnecessary.   Instead of trying to literally add up the heat content of every heat carrying body on the planet (including land) science measures the average heat —the temperature— around the globe.   That resulting metric is an indicator of heat content of the planet and reveals the warming / cooling of the planet as a whole.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.1.29  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.28    5 years ago
Heat content is a function of the body in which it is measured.   The larger the body, the more potential heat content.   And in air, the more humidity, the more potential heat content.   Those are basics.   Where you go wrong is to try to apply these basics to measure the heat content of the planet.   Temperature measures the average heat in a body.

What is needed are dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures.  Both pieces of data have been collected since the early 20th century.  Wet bulb temperature measurements are more sparse in earlier records.  So, yes, it is possible generate a more meaningful average metric from available data but it is almost impossible to compare that metric to the past.  And it is impossible to reconstruct prehistoric trends in wet bulb temperatures.

If we focus on air as the body (for the moment), as the humidity rises there is a potential for the air to hold more heat.   If it does, and this is the key point,the temperature rises.    The temperature reflects what we are looking for;  the temperature measurement reflects average heat.   Global average temperature reflects the heat on the planet.   Over time, the global average temperature shows the planetary trend — the average heat content of the entire body (the planet).

Okay, that's reasonable if water phase change in the atmosphere, diurnal temperature differential, and cloud cover are ignored.  But ignoring the water cycle is why average temperature is meaningless.  Earth is a water planet, not a gas planet, and water is the main planetary factor influencing climatic conditions and measured temperatures.

To measure the heat content of the planet directly would require measuring the heat content of every body carrying heat and adding this up.   That, Nerm, is impossible and unnecessary.   Instead of trying to literally add up the heat content of every heat carrying body on the planet (including land) science measures the average heat —the temperature— around the globe.   That resulting metric is anindicator of heat content of the planetand reveals the warming / cooling of the planet as a whole. 

No, suggesting that every body carrying heat must be measured is a fallacious argument.  A metric of global average heat content would be more useful than average temperature (and using assumptions to estimate heat content).  A heat content metric requires a different measurement (which is already being done) and averaging the heat data in the same way as temperature.  While admittedly an over simplification, a global average heat index would be more informative.  And that data is already being collected and reported.

But that 'heat index' data can't be used to validate climate models or correlate with prehistoric reconstructions which is the real purpose of global average temperature data.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4  MrFrost    5 years ago

So the basis of this article is that in 2019, we cannot take a temperature? I can send a text message from WA. here in the USA to a friend in Australia and it will be there in less than a minute, but we can't take a temperature? 

Wow. Someone is desperate to make some big oil money. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
5  MrFrost    5 years ago

Disputing AGW at this point borders on lunacy. 

Lets say you find out that you have cancer.

97 doctors tell you that with a simple surgery, it can be removed and you'll be cancer free. Three doctors tell you that if you ignore it, it will go away on its own. 

Which group of doctors are you going with? 

Let's say you are blind and 97 people tell you the sky is blue, and three tell you it's purple. 

Who are you going to go with? 

But...

When 97% of climatologists world wide say that man made global warming is reality, suddenly people are going with the 3% because people who know absolutely DICK about the environment, (or care for that matter), because they say so?

That's some next level stupidity. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.1  Ozzwald  replied to  MrFrost @5    5 years ago
That's some next level stupidity. 

Unfortunately it isn't so much "next level".  The same stupidity occurred with lead in gasoline and smoking causes cancer.  Scientists versus $'s. 

We look back now and think lead and smoking denials were ridiculous, we will look back in the future and think climate change deniers were equally stupid.  The difference is that humans may not be around in the future to think that about climate change.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
5.2  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @5    5 years ago
AGW at Disputing this point borders on lunacy. 

Insisting on the reality of a hoax is lunacy.

You don't have the facts and figures. You rely on data that can be easily corrupted and manipulated. You try to sell this hoax with hysteria and name calling. The climate changers have done a piss poor job of trying to convince the public of this alleged calamity occurring decades into the future.

And even if climate change and global warming were real, what is being done about it?

Neither we deniers or Trump is stopping this supposed problem from being solved.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
5.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @5.2    5 years ago
Trump is stopping this supposed problem from being solved.

False. Trump has rolled back MANY environmental protections in the USA. 

Hell, look for yourself.

83 Environmental Rules Being
Rolled Back Under Trump

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @5    5 years ago
Disputing AGW at this point borders on lunacy. 

The seeded article is not disputing AGW.  The point of the article is that we are engaged in pointless arguments over meaningless information.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.3.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3    5 years ago
The point of the article is that we are engaged in pointless arguments over meaningless information.

Exactly, climate change deniers are engaged in a pointless argument over meaningless information, to them. But those who actually have an education and understand the climate data being collected and see trends, and those effected by the increased hurricane intensity and frequency understand very well what the data is telling them. And just because the "average global temperature" doesn't give us any indication of action in any specific region, it does give us an over-all indicator for temperature trends compared to past years collected. To say that doesn't matter is to be truly mind-numbingly stupid as even 1 degree in any of these locations being recorded can have serious impacts for many areas. It claims "The globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average" Oh, a huge number of components, so any scientists actually studying each component is wasting their time because there are just so many, a small minded idiot would believe that its impossible to have any predictive power, which is what half wits said of astronomers and even weathermen till the half wits were proved so very wrong.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.2  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.3.1    5 years ago
Exactly, climate change deniers are engaged in a pointless argument over meaningless information, to them.

So, climate change deniers use meaningless scientific arguments to mislead the public?  Why is misleading use of science limited to only deniers?

The premise of the argument is that science can be manipulated to mislead the public by anyone pursuing a political agenda.  

And just because the "average global temperature" doesn't give us any indication of action in any specific region, it does give us an over-all indicator for temperature trends compared to past years collected.

Yes, a large amount of past data is available and can be compared with current data.  But that doesn't validate using the comparison for another purpose.  And attempting to validate the comparison for other purposes does not justify manipulating the data to improve a statistical correlation.  

It claims "The globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average" Oh, a huge number of components, so any scientists actually studying each component is wasting their time because there are just so many, a small minded idiot would believe that its impossible to have any predictive power, which is what half wits said of astronomers and even weathermen till the half wits were proved so very wrong.

Average global temperature does not contribute to studying each component that may influence climate.  It's the effort involved in obtaining an average global temperature that is a waste of time and resources.

Average global temperature doesn't tell us the Arctic is warming at a faster rate than other regions or that the Gulf Stream may be slowing or that diurnal temperature differentials are changing.  Average global temperature doesn't tell us if the Northern Hemisphere is behaving differently than the Southern Hemisphere or if the upper atmosphere is changing or if there is more or less water in the atmosphere.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.2    5 years ago
Average global temperature doesn't tell us the Arctic is warming at a faster rate than other regions or that the Gulf Stream may be slowing or that diurnal temperature differentials are changing. 

Correct.   You seem to think that climate scientists walk around with one metric:  average global temperature and attempt to divine all explanations of the field from that sole metric.

Clearly you know better so why make such a silly argument?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.3.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.2    5 years ago
So, climate change deniers use meaningless scientific arguments to mislead the public?  Why is misleading use of science limited to only deniers?

Because deniers have the most to gain from misrepresenting the science. The vast majority of climate scientists doing their jobs, collecting data, reviewing it and drawing conclusions based on it would continue whether the data showed human effects on climate or not, they aren't being paid more if they misrepresent the data. It just is what it is, and nearly every one has concluded that man does have a measurable effect on climate change. But with the tiny minority of climate scientists who add doubt, who claim that the climate has always been changing and there are times in the past when these same changes happened so its not a big deal, are being paid handsomely by the fossil fuel industry. They have an actual reason to lie, to misrepresent and obfuscate, they're being paid to find any minor flaws in the data, just like a defense attorney trying to find any flaw in the prosecutions case, even if its a tiny clerical error or technicality they present it as obvious proof of their clients innocence and proclaim the case should be thrown out of court.

I have always been fascinated at the claim from some climate change deniers that the climate scientists must be lying for some financial gain, most climate scientists make public school teacher wages, they're not paid the big bucks like the scientists who work for the oil and gas industry. So I really can't imagine the guy on the teachers salary to be the big liar misrepresenting the data, it's just not plausible. The handful of high salaried scientists paid to throw doubt into the mix and those paying them have billions of reasons why they would want to misrepresent the data.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.5  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.3.4    5 years ago
Because deniers have the most to gain from misrepresenting the science.

I disagree.  The climate change alarmists are expecting a global expenditure of at least $99 trillion to transition away from fossil fuels.  The potential monetary rewards for supporting climate are far larger than denying climate change.  Even now there are orders of magnitude more money spent on basic research that supports climate change than is being spent on either applied research to mitigate the problem or research to deny climate change.

If a small amount of bargain basement denier research can throw a monkey wrench in the science supporting climate change then how competent has been that climate research?

I have always been fascinated at the claim from some climate change deniers that the climate scientists must be lying for some financial gain, most climate scientists make public school teacher wages, they're not paid the big bucks like the scientists who work for the oil and gas industry. So I really can't imagine the guy on the teachers salary to be the big liar misrepresenting the data, it's just not plausible. The handful of high salaried scientists paid to throw doubt into the mix and those paying them have billions of reasons why they would want to misrepresent the data.

The consensus of climate scientists have a vested financial interest in the consensus.  If climate research actually produced useful information that could be used to mitigate the problem, then the public gravy train goes away.  Climate scientists aren't lying.  But climate scientists don't want to kill the job, either.

It's definitely easier to obtain research grants for paleobiology with climate change than without climate change.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.3.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @5.3.5    5 years ago
If climate research actually produced useful information that could be used to mitigate the problem, then the public gravy train goes away. 

Total bullshit hogwash coming straight from the fossil fuel industry. We employ climate scientists not because of the warming trends they've identified, but because knowing more about our planet is beneficial and allows us to predict future changes which helps everyone. It's why its been publicly funded, its a public good to understand our own effect on the planet we inhabit. Claiming anything different is just false rhetoric fed by those with a vested interest in keeping people uninformed.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5.3.7  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.3.6    5 years ago
Total bullshit hogwash coming straight from the fossil fuel industry. We employ climate scientists not because of the warming trends they've identified, but because knowing more about our planet is beneficial and allows us to predict future changes which helps everyone. It's why its been publicly funded, its a public good to understand our own effect on the planet we inhabit. Claiming anything different is just false rhetoric fed by those with a vested interest in keeping people uninformed.

Does anyone honestly believe that research money would have been available for reconstructing paleoclimate without climate change?  Comment @6 shows a graph of atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last 400,000 years.  Does anyone believe research money would have been available to obtain that data without climate change?

What does a reconstructed paleoclimate contribute towards mitigating the problem?  The basic sciences that normally have difficulty obtaining research money have certainly provided a lot of interesting material that can be used for a marketing campaign.  Yeah, it's interesting but is it useful?

Climate change isn't even needed to argue for transitioning away from fossil fuels.  We've picked all the low hanging fruit on the fossil fuel tree.  The higher costs and greater dependence on technology to produce lower grade fossil fuels will naturally make alternatives more economically competitive.  If anything, the climate change alarmists are prolonging our dependence on fossil fuels.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
6  MrFrost    5 years ago

800

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
7  MrFrost    5 years ago

Evidence is all around us...

Greenland's ice is melting at the rate scientists thought would be our worst-case scenario in 2070

Greenland is known for its glaciers, but in the past month, the island has shed ice and taken on fire.

Scientists didn't expect to see Greenland melt at this rate for another 50 years: By the last week of July, the melting had reached levels that   climate models projected for 2070   in the most pessimistic scenario.

On August 1, Greenland's ice sheet lost 12.5 billions tons of ice, more than any day since researchers started recording ice loss in 1950,   The Washington Post reported .

The dramatic melt suggests that Greenland's ice sheet is approaching a tipping point that could set it on an irreversible course towards disappearing entirely. If that happens, catastrophic sea-level rise would   swallow coastal cities   across the globe. As ice melt continues to outpace scientists' expectations, some fear that could happen more quickly than they thought.

55 billion tons of water in 5 days

384

A satellite image shows melt-water ponding on the surface of the ice sheet in northwest Greenland, near the sheet’s edge, on July 30, 2019.   NASA via Associated Press

The Arctic's melting season starts each year in June and ends in August, with peak melting in July. However, the scale of ice loss in Greenland this year was extraordinary. From July 30 to August 3, melting occurred across   90%   of the continent's surface, dumping 55 billion tons of water over 5 days. That's enough to cover Florida in   almost 5 inches of water .

The melting mirrored the record-breaking ice loss   seen in 2012 , when almost all of Greenland's ice sheet was exposed to melting for the first time in documented history. This year, the ice started to melt even earlier than in 2012 and three weeks earlier than average, CNN   reported.

This extreme melting came during the   hottest month ever recorded , as an intense heat wave   washed over Europe   then wafted over to Greenland. Low-elevation ice began to melt and form pools across the ice sheet, and those pools' dark colors absorbed more sunlight, which further melted the glacier around them and exposed more ice to hot air.

384

Ice melts during a heatwave in Kangerlussuaq, Greenland on August 1, 2019. Caspar Haarloev from "Into the Ice" documentary via Reuters

Similarly above-average melting was observed in Switzerland — glaciers there   lost 800 million tons of ice   during the heat waves of June and July. Alaska also saw record   sea-ice melt   in July.

All that melting exposes more   permafrost : frozen soil that releases powerful greenhouse gases when it thaws. That's   happening faster than scientists predicted . The release of those gases leads the planet to warm even more, which accelerates more ice melt.

Last month was an anomaly for Greenland, but it could be the new normal by 2070 if humans don't curb greenhouse-gas emissions, according to climate models simulated by   Xavier Fettweis , a climate researcher at the University of Liège in Belgium.

"By mid to end of the century is when we should be seeing these melt levels — not right now," Ruth Mottram, a climate scientist at the Danish Meteorological Institute, told   Inside Climate News . "[The models] are clearly not able to capture some of these important processes."

Melting ice in Greenland raises sea levels

Greenland's ice melt has already raised sea levels more than 0.5 inches since 1972. Half of that occurred just in the last eight years, according to a   study   published in April.

384

Ice melt forms gushing white water in Kangerlussuaq, Greenland on August 1, 2019. tk

At this rate,   the entire Greenland ice sheet could melt   within 1,000 years, causing up to 23 feet of sea level rise.

But Mottram isn't so sure about that projected timeline.

"Somewhere between 1.5 and 2 degrees, there's a tipping point after which it will no longer be possible to maintain the Greenland Ice Sheet," she told   Inside Climate News . "What we don't have a handle on is how quickly the Greenland Ice Sheet will be lost."

Greenland's ice is already approaching that tipping point, according to a   study   published in May. Whereas melting during warm cycles used to get balanced out by new ice forming during cool cycles, warm periods now cause significant meltdown and cool periods simply pause it.

That makes it difficult for the ice sheet to regenerate what it's losing.

Unprecedented fires have also burned across the Arctic

384

Satellites detected the infrared signal of a wildfire near Sisimiut, Greenland on July 10, 2019. Joshua Stevens/NASA Earth Observatory

The warm, dry weather that caused the ice to melt also set the stage for wildfires in Greenland.

Satellites first detected a wildfire near Sisimiut area on July 10. Temperatures in the region at the time   approached 68 degrees Fahrenheit   (20 degrees Celsius); the normal daily high is 50 degrees (10 degrees Celsius).

The fires may have been   started by a hiker   using   an outdoor oven .

This was the first fire of its size since another large one in the same area surprised scientists   in August 2017 . That fire blazed for two weeks.

(Cont.)

These global temp averages seem to be pretty close to spot on Nerm. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
7.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @7    5 years ago
These global temp averages seem to be pretty close to spot on Nerm. 

What does Greenland have to do with Australia?  Completely different climates.  How will averaging the temperatures in Greenland and Australia provide useful information?

Global average temperature cannot be used to predict what will happen in different regions.  The disparate regions of the Earth are thermodynamically different with completely different climates.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
7.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1    5 years ago
What does Greenland have to do with Australia?

Same planet? 

Completely different climates. 

And Greenland is one of ICE, not billions of tons of melting water. You should read the article, Nerm. Since 1972 Greenland's ice melt has added half an inch to the global sea level half an in since 1972. Doesn't sound like much, but Greenland holds enough ice that if it all melted? It would add 23 FEET to the global sea levels. And that's just Greenland, that's not even counting the polar ice sheets. 

Global average temperature cannot be used to predict what will happen in different regions.  The disparate regions of the Earth are thermodynamically different with completely different climates.  

I know what you are trying to say, I get it, I just do not agree with it. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
7.1.2  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.1    5 years ago
And Greenland is one of ICE, not billions of tons of melting water. You should read the article, Nerm. Since 1972 Greenland's ice melt has added half an inch to the global sea level half an in since 1972. Doesn't sound like much, but Greenland holds enough ice that if it all melted? It would add 23 FEET to the global sea levels. And that's just Greenland, that's not even counting the polar ice sheets. 

I'm familiar with melting ice on Greenland. But global average temperature doesn't tell me a damn thing about what is happening to Greenland.

International air flights over Greenland have increased almost exponentially over the last 70 years.  1,500 international flights every day maintains a persistent blanket of CO2 at high altitude over Greenland.  That information is useful for understanding what is happening and mitigating what is happening.

So, instead of pointless arguments over meaningless information, why aren't we arguing about banning air travel over Greenland?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
7.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.2    5 years ago
International air flights over Greenland have increased almost exponentially over the last 70 years.  1,500 international flights every day maintains a persistent blanket of CO2 at high altitude over Greenland.  That information is useful for understanding what is happening and mitigating what is happening. So, instead of pointless arguments over meaningless information, why aren't we arguing about banning air travel over Greenland?

Because CO2 doesn't stay in one place. It does move with the atmosphere and it's cumulative. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
7.1.4  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.3    5 years ago
Because CO2 doesn't stay in one place. It does move with the atmosphere and it's cumulative. 

I can turn on a faucet and there will always be water at the faucet.  The water doesn't stay in one place but the faucet does.  Aircraft flying over Greenland on a regular daily schedule is like a faucet.  The CO2 emitted over Greenland is replenished every day.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.4    5 years ago

What nonsensical comparisons you make.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
7.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.4    5 years ago
I can turn on a faucet and there will always be water at the faucet.  The water doesn't stay in one place but the faucet does. 

That comparison literally makes no sense at all. 

The CO2emitted over Greenland is replenished every day.

Replenished? It doesn't go away, at least got you to admit that much. Again, CO2 is a GLOBAL problem, not one limited to a few places here and there. Like air, CO2 doesn't stay stationary in one spot. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
7.1.7  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.6    5 years ago
That comparison literally makes no sense at all. 

Pollutant levels over a highway are persistently higher than surrounding areas because the traffic replenishes the pollutants.  It's really not difficult to understand.

Or is this simply denying science that contradicts a political belief?

Replenished? It doesn't go away, at least got you to admit that much. Again, CO2 is a GLOBAL problem, not one limited to a few places here and there. Like air, CO2 doesn't stay stationary in one spot. 

Haven't you heard of carbon sinks?  Photosynthesis?  Of course CO2 'goes away' otherwise there wouldn't be life on the planet.  CO2 undergoes both seasonal and regional fluctuations.

The idea that CO2 doesn't 'go away' is political nonsense.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
7.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.7    5 years ago
Haven't you heard of carbon sinks?  Photosynthesis?  Of course CO2 'goes away' otherwise there wouldn't be life on the planet.

Yes and I covered that already. The problem is that we cannot get rid of the CO2 gas as fast as we put it in the atmosphere. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
7.1.9  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.8    5 years ago
Yes and I covered that already. The problem is that we cannot get rid of the CO2 gas as fast as we put it in the atmosphere. 

How do we know?  The NASA Orbital Carbon Observatory was supposed to provide answers.  Where are those answers?  It's not an unreasonable expectation that directly measuring CO2 in the atmospheric column would provide useful information.  Silence is not an acceptable result.

With 17 Earth orbiting satellites we shouldn't still be stuck on a thermodynamically indefensible measure of global warming.  Accurate measurement of the wrong data won't improve the usefulness of that data.

So, instead of arguing about directly observed CO2 we are still arguing over global rectal thermometers.  How much more time and money do we need to waste on science that provides nothing useful?

A global average temperature doesn't tell us anything useful.  Temperatures provide absolutely no information about causes or confirmation of causes.  And since water is present in all three phases, temperature doesn't tell us anything useful about heat transfer since phase change does not alter temperature. 

We are being expected to mitigate possible causes by trial and error which can be costly and may not accomplish anything.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.9    5 years ago
How do we know?  The NASA Orbital Carbon Observatory was supposed to provide answers.  Where are those answers?  It's not an unreasonable expectation that directly measuring CO2 in the atmospheric column would provide useful information.  Silence is not an acceptable result.

OCO-2 data continues to be analyzed.   The results thus far are available in research papers but also on NASA's website.   OCO-3 data will add a new dimension for analysis.

Why do you consider this to be silence?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
7.2  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @7    5 years ago
Greenland's ice melt has already raised sea levels more than 0.5 inches since 1972. Half of that occurred just in the last eight years, according to a study published in April.

WOW! Half an inch in 47 years?  Is that what we should expect in an interglacial period?

Do realize that it is summer at that latitude and that the sun is up most of the day?

Are you aware that some summers are warmer than others and that more melt will occur.

Temperatures don't start fires. Lightning and people do. Fires are aggravated by droughts which may, or may not, be attributable to global warming.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
7.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2    5 years ago

Did you read what you were quoting? 

0.5 inches since 1972. Half of that occurred just in the last eight years, according to a study published in April.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9  Tacos!    5 years ago

I guess I'm missing something?

Are there places on Earth where it's not getting warmer or where it's actually getting cooler to offset warming in other areas? If there is, then something like that would call into question the usefulness of the averaging, but I have not heard of anything like that.

If we weren't measuring the places that are getting cooler, then yes, the averages would be misleading, but again, I don't see that claim being made. It seems to me like the averages still have some use.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
9.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tacos! @9    5 years ago
Are there places on Earth where it's not getting warmer or where it's actually getting cooler to offset warming in other areas? If there is, then something like that would call into question the usefulness of the averaging, but I have not heard of anything like that.

There have been reports of regional harsh winters and cooler conditions.  The central northern United States has experienced record snow fall, rainfall, and close to record cold temperatures this year.  The southern region of the United States has been experiencing snow and cooler temperatures more often, too.

Yes, that is most likely due to climate change.  But the point is that a global average temperature doesn't tell us anything about those types of regional changes in weather.  A region can experience record cold temperatures one year and record high temperatures the next.  And 30 years of weather data is averaged to provide an average climate for the region.

Here's the scary part.  Three nights of freezing temperatures during June in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and northern Illinois won't change the average temperature very much but could kill off those state's entire corn and soybean crop.  

Average temperatures don't tell us anything about regional anomalies that could be devastating.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Nerm_L @9.1    5 years ago
Average temperatures don't tell us anything about regional anomalies that could be devastating.

No, but it was never supposed to. By it's very nature, the figure of average global temperature is supposed be an aid in tracking long-term trends over a broad area. Complaining about that is like saying your house key is useless because it won't start your car. That task is not what it's for.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
9.1.2  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.1    5 years ago
No, but it was never supposed to. By it's very nature, the figure of average global temperature is supposed be an aid in tracking long-term trends over a broad area. Complaining about that is like saying your house key is useless because it won't start your car. That task is not what it's for.

Averaging all the keys won't open the door of any house.  So, what's the value of the average?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @9.1.2    5 years ago

Another nonsensical comparison

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
9.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.1    5 years ago
No, but it was never supposed to. By it's very nature, the figure of average global temperature is supposed be an aid in tracking long-term trends over a broad area. Complaining about that is like saying your house key is useless because it won't start your car. That task is not what it's for.

Perfectly stated. Well done Tacos!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Nerm_L @9.1.2    5 years ago
So, what's the value of the average?

I explained that but I'll repeat it: Tracking long-term trends over a broad area.

Sometimes we need to look at a problem up close and get details. Other times, we want to step back and get the big picture. Global average temperature is a "big picture" number.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
9.1.6  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.5    5 years ago
I explained that but I'll repeat it: Tracking long-term trends over a broad area. Sometimes we need to look at a problem up close and get details. Other times, we want to step back and get the big picture. Global average temperature is a "big picture" number.

Another big picture number would be global average income.  But the trend in global average income doesn't provide meaningful information.  Global average income is not a valid metric for monitoring income levels around the world and identifying problems.

The big picture depends upon the validity of the metric being monitored.  And attempting to statistically correlate a monitored metric with other factors or other observations does not validate the use of that metric as an indicator.  

Claiming that particular regional weather events, like a hurricanes, have been indicated by increasing average global temperature is nonsensical.  While it is certainly possible to mislead people into accepting that conclusion, the misleading use of the metric is more a marketing gimmick of political science than a valid scientific conclusion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @9.1.6    5 years ago
Global average income is not a valid metric for monitoring income levels around the world and identifying problems.

Similarly, global average temperature is not used to monitor temperature levels around the world and identify problems.   It applies to the planet as a whole and is used historically as a macro trend.   Climate science and the interesting analysis occurs at much lower levels of detail.   Right?

Pretty much what Tacos! told you upfront:   

Tacos! @9.1.1 No, but it was never supposed to. By it's very nature, the figure of average global temperature is supposed be an aid in tracking long-term trends over a broad area. Complaining about that is like saying your house key is useless because it won't start your car. That task is not what it's for.
 
 

Who is online

CB
Snuffy
Right Down the Center
jw
Sean Treacy
Tacos!
MrFrost


82 visitors