Temperature measurement problems in global warming

 

 

This is a temperature chart (fictional) showing hourly temperatures.  Global warming does not use hourly temperatures, but rather daily highs and lows.  This appears to be because we do not have a computer capable of dealing with the huge volume of data that would involve.  However, when we are looking at the temperature of the earth and how it relates to energy in/energy out, this is important.  As you can see (click on image to enlarge), there is a huge difference in the actual averages of the hourly temperatures each day.  This should matter.  The averages are 27, 29.42, 36.75, 31.125, 38.125 and 32.5.  Only the final day is close to the mean of the min/max, which is 32.  They vary from 6 degrees above the average to 5 degrees below.  While these are fabricated numbers for illustration purposed, they are based on actual daily temperatures that I have seen occur.  One could take actual temperatures and they would yield the same result.  People know that some days are cool and them reach a very short high in the afternoon, other days are warm after a low overnight.  Yet global warming science does not include this information.  Now, you may say “Well, we don’t have any way to use it”.  That’s true, but the problem is not that we have no way to use data, but rather science and politics have the hubris to pretend these temperatures do not matter.  Of course they do.  The theory cannot be “settled science” if you have no way to use data that affects the outcome.

 

 

This is a map of temperatures on one day in the United States.  These are the temperatures used to determine the reality of global warming.  Who chose where these temperature stations set?  Who determined this is the “real” temperature and the proper one to use.  There can easily be 5 degree differences, or more, over a mile’s distance.  Right now, on this day of July 23, 2020 at 10:30AM, the “official” weather station reports 79F.  My weather station says 81F.  What is the “real” temperature?  It’s a completely arbitrary choice.  There are those trying to locate stations away from cities, etc, to create a more reliable measurement, but again, we are forced to take a TINY, TINY portion of the actual temperatures recorded on the globe and use them as a sample.  If this was done in other areas of science, and done properly, the researcher would be forced to admit their sample size was too small to actually determine significance of any changes.  It’s like using 5 people for a study and extrapolating to the whole population of the planet.

These two illustrations are to get you thinking about how we measure temperatures and how very little we actually know or use of the data available on temperature.  There are satellites measuring temperatures and they cover a significant portion of the planet, giving us more information (though again, we need a computer with enough computing power to use it).  There is a complaint that satellites do not measure ground temperature and we live on the ground.  That might be an important point, but it cannot be shown until we can compare a large volume of land temperatures versus satellite.  That may never happen.

Without adequate, usable data, the theory of global warming cannot be considered “settled science”.  There are too many variables not measured and not usable to even be close to settle science.  We are at the “four elements: earth, wind, fire and water” stage in understanding climate but we’re claiming to understand the Theory of Everything.  Sadder still, we’re destroying the environment, harming humans and trying to return to the “good old days” where people died early and often all under the pretense of saving a planet we do not understand well enough to save.  Anyone up for a cancer diagnosis based on a low-resolution photo sent over a shakey internet via email?  Would you mind cutting your leg off for that or having chemo?  I certainly hope not, yet people do the equivalent daily with the belief in CAGW.