What is the earth’s temperature?

Global warming is an increase in the amount of the sun’s energy that earth retains. This then may cause an increase in the temperature of the planet, referred to as global warming. Why “may cause”? Because the temperature of the earth is affected by many things that act to increase and reduce the amount of energy retained. It’s not just a single factor.

Temperature is the average thermal energy of a material’s molecules. Most of the time, temperature is expressed in degrees C (celsius) or F (Fahrenheit). There is also Kelvin (K), which does not use the designation of degrees because it is an absolute scale (zero K is where all molecular movement stops–a fascinating idea, I always thought*). People generally regard the measurement of temperature as what feels “hot” and “cold” rather than the thermal energy of a material.

Temperature is measured in various ways:

There were the liquid-filled tubes, originally containing mercury. Later, it was a colored liquid. I have always regarded these as most accurate since they are simple and straightforward. I really don’t have any evidence this type of thermometer is usually quite accurate except it’s simplicity and fewer moving parts seems to indicate less chance of error.

There were bi-metal thermometers, copper with steel attached to each other. The metal expand at a known rate as temperature rises and falls. Adding a couple of additional metal pieces allowed for min/max measurement without one actually having to be reading the thermometer at that exact point. Now, many thermometers are digital, based on electrical resistance. Based on my experience with various digital measuring devices, these seem the least accurate and require frequent calibration.

For AGW, there are also satellite measurements, requiring mathematic calculation to convert to temperatures. These give us a more global picture.

How many points are measured? With a satellite, you basically have full coverage of the globe. With land, you do not. The arctic and antarctic, remote areas and so forth have very, very few stations. The USA, Europe and much of North America have coverage while the southern hemisphere is much more sparse. One hears the complaint that North America, as in the US, is not global, but the stations are heavily weighted to the US. So in a sense, North America is a proxy for global, as much as those pine trees and their rings were.

Ocean temperatures have been added to global temperature calculations, but unfortunately, as is the case in so much of climate research, there exist two measuring systems which are completely and utterly different and do not correlate nor back up each other. There’s the ancient “bucket from a ship method” where temperatures were originally measured by literally dropping a bucket from a ship and taking the water temperature. Modern techniques based on this idea are better but still subject to large margins of error. Then there are the buoys a fortune was spent on but the buoys didn’t give the desired result of showing warming, so they seem to have been dropped out, another wasted fortune on climate research. (Eventually, they may prove valuable. One never knows.) All of this means there is no true measurement of “global temperatures”, just measurement where convenient or practical.

What about missing points? If one is using a grid to homogenize and average the temperatures before further averaging, you have to fill in missing points. How? I learned they were called “fudge factors” and were basically “scientific” guessing when I was in college. Now, we call it kriging and other high tech terms. With the aid of computers, we have lead ourselves to believe we can quite magically know what we do not know. Temperatures vary widely, even over short distances. To vainly believe one can estimate accurately is just hubris. Now, it might be “close enough” (like horseshoes and hand grenades “close enough”) but if the error bars are included, it looks pretty shaky. Plus, when we get to averages and anomalies, we’re talking a tenth of a degree as significant. We simply do not have the accuracy to make such claims, even though such claims are constantly made to that effect.

Temperatures used are generally min/max, homogenized and averaged. Homogenized is great for milk, but I am very unsure that it works for the betterment of temperature distributions. Ignoring extremes ignores the reality of temperature on this planet which again, varies widely even in small areas. There seem to be different methods calculating the averages and what gets homogenized. There’s also conflicting arguments about raw data showing more warming than homogenized or homogenizing creating warming. This is the problem with records, adjustments and statistics. It’s far too easy to adjust data to fit the theory. At this point, since there is only one theory that is accepted by many, manipulation in the direction of supporting warming is bound to happen, deliberate or not.

Reducing temperatures to min/max has problems. There is no way to know if the day was 70 degrees for several hours, or 50 degrees then 70 for an hour. There are many days where the min/max is only a point on the scale and not at all representative of the actual temperatures for the day. I realize we lack the capacity to calculate using the massive number of data points using all the temperatures for a day would involve, but get an accurate picture, that is necessary. After all, this is used to determine whether or not the earth is retaining more heat, the original stated goal. What we are doing now is short-cutting to help bolster a theory.

It’s very doubtful that using min/max combined is useful. Separating them would let us see where the warming is occurring more accurately. When the min and max are separated, nighttime temperatures are what seem to be going up. The Urban Heat Island effect can explain much of this, as well as the helping to explain the increase in daytime temperatures. Wind turbines can do the same thing on a windy night. AGW and wind advocates argue this does not matter and is local, but if one’s “local” increases are going into the overall average, there is a very real chance there is an effect. Satellites measure further up in the atmosphere, but still, using min and max rather than a daily average of say hourly temperatures may give a very incorrect average overall. I have read that measuring further up in the atmosphere is not useful since we don’t live there, but it’s perfectly fine for determining the energy budget. The objection is really irrelevant to the theory and only relevant to what happens with humans and ground temperatures.

There are other questions and concerns with the temperature measurments, calculations, etc that will be addressed later. This will be something of a series on global warming, an informal one albeit.

(It was said there are no negative Kelvins, but in 2013 it was determined there are negative Kelvins. Negative Kelvins are actually hot, not cold. There is no temperature below 0 Kelvin but there are negative Kelvins. It’s all very bizarre!)

Odds’n’Ends while I work on researching temperature data

Note:  If anyone has a great source for raw temperature data, please post it in the comments section.  Thanks.

From the climate genius Elizabeth Warren–

“What scares me is every time you go back to the scientists, they tell you two things,” the senator said. “It’s worse than we thought, and we have less time.”

Warren is too uneducated and unscientific to see (or too evil to admit she does) this means THE SCIENCE IS WRONG.  If you miss every time, your theory is bad and should be discarded.  I remind people of this all the time.  There is a very, very wrong belief that the theory not predicting cooling is the only proof of a bad theory.  Failure to accurately predict warming—as in “it’s worse than we thought”—is absolutely proof the theory is far from proven or useful.

The kind of climate protest we all would love:

216604_5_

Great photo on American Thinker—apparently from a Twitter thread showing Extinction Rebellion with their heads buried in the sand.  Back in the era of brave and courageous humans, this would have lead to having one’s posterior soundly kicked over and over to illustrate the stupidity of the creature with its head in the sand.  Sadly, I doubt we have the courage to do what is needed.  Sigh.  It does prove they know zip about climate or science.  I guess that’s something….Plus, they’re silent now.  Maybe more protests like this, with photo ops and no speech would be nice.

A word on the wildfires in Australia:

The number one problem is humans—SETTING THE FIRES.  The arson rate for these fires is astronomical.  So when someone says the fires are human caused, agree and state that jailing arsonists might help.  There are articles to the effect that Australia has always had a problem with arson-started fires.  As wide open as the land is, I have no doubt.

When corrected about using climate change without saying “anthropogenic”:

In contemporary vernacular “climate change” has come to mean “catastrophic man made…”

If that’s not your definition, then you are by definition a “denier”.

One of my past slide shows about climate change:

 

Welcome to clueless

From the “clueless comparisons” department:

“The stone age ended not because we ran out of stones. The same with oil and gas.”  quote from Forbes

That is one of the STUPIDEST, MOST UNEDUCATED, IDIOTIC statement ever made.  It’s equivalent to “we did not starve because we ran out of food, we ran out of cooking utensils”.  And this from Forbes?????  Americans have become drooling fools, knuckle dragging cavemen.  We didn’t run out of the Stone Age, the troglodytes just wear suits now.

Condensation—maybe good for soups, bad for science

Condensing the IPCC report down to a “Summary for Policymakers” has the same result as taking the Dune trilogy (Frank Herbert) and making a two-hour movie.  It destroys the complexity of the input and the output is unusable (or in the case of “Dune”, unwatchable).  

In the news:

Hottest June ever in Paris.  No mention in most articles of the COLDEST June in much of the USA and elsewhere.  Of course not, because FACTS don’t matter, spin does.  If ever you wonder if climate “science” is real science, this is proof it is NOT.  When you only present facts favorable to your side, it’s politics or religion, not science.  So next time someone brings up climate change, just point out the complete hypocrisy of the “scientists” and media in presenting only data favorable to them.  It’s not science.

Concerning the continued screeching about one heat wave, etc:

I find it fascinating that ONE heat wave or other hot event can so shift an average, which is what climate is, enough to declare “climate change”.  You take 6,000 red balls, throw in a blue one, and suddenly, the balls all turn purple.  Fascinating, absolutely fascinating.

Observation:

Weather forecasting is taking on the characteristics of climate “science”.  We start out the week with a forecast in the 80’s or 90’s for the end of the week or the whole week.  Then, two or three days out, the temperature forecast suddenly drops and then goes back up at the end of that seven or ten day period.  The pattern is quite clear.  I’ve monitored it at least six months and the pattern is holding.  Last week, 90’s were forecast for all of this week.  Now we are down to the low 80’s forecast for the three days after today, but still 90’s at the end of the week.  I do believe the contamination of science by “climate science” is spreading like a nasty disease.  It may be eventually fatal to science.

ALASKA HEATWAVE.  WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE, DIE, DIE. 

Per CBS and other crazy people standing on the street corner in sackcloth with a sign “The End is Near”. 

Again, the fools in the so-called media cannot tell the difference between weather and climate.  Yet you never see Michael Mann or any so-called climate “scientist” or media person yelling at the media like warmists “yell” skeptics for exactly the same thing.  As far as I can tell, it’s just wonder to have confused, inaccurate climate scientists, but skeptics better not get anything wrong.  Really?  So climate scientists and the media can be stupid, wrong and lie????  What a wonder recommendation for fake science.

Desperation to preserve the non-preservable

On WUWT, there was an article on solar cells and increasing efficiency.  My response is “yawn”.  It may be unlimited fuel, but we have had the sun for light since time eternal (or the Big Bang or whatever).  Yet the sale of and demand for light bulbs never decreases.  The stupidity of solar (energy—“Energy from Weather”) is quite clear when you look at it that way.  It’s a FAIL.

 

Call me when it’s safe out there.

No, your degree does not matter

Speaking of going with the person with the most advanced degree……

Today I found a perfect illustration of the lie of “authority rule” and that the less qualified cannot call out the more qualified.  I have to get new glasses.  The OPTOMETRIST (guy with NO MD after his name) will NOT accept an OPHTHALMOLOGIST’S exam in place of doing his own.  Yep, the LEAST qualified demands to double-check the MOST qualified.  So, bloggers are fully qualified to double-check climate scientists and will be so long as I have to pay a lesser qualified person a lot more than I did the more qualified for an exam I DO NOT NEED but he has to double-check that MD.  Hey, it’s the warmists that are always throwing out that “believe your MD” stuff.  So, warmists, you are wrong and I won’t accept any of your “logic” so long as this situation in the eye care world’s reversal of authority continues to exist (or at least until I see a national campaign by climate scientists to remedy this wrong).

I will note that the optometrist in this case seemed more interested in just getting a baseline for his own curiosity (which I of course had to pay for), but I still maintain that a “refraction only” option is the only proper behavior based on “authority” and “appropriateness of education degrees” according to the global warming believer’s criteria.

It’s here!

Today on NOTALOTOFPEOPLEKNOWTHAT:

Fluffy and Fido are ruining the environment.  According to a study out of UCLA.

YES!  I predicted this months ago.  When the push to remove meat from our diets was revived, I kept noting that dogs and cats are huge consumers of meat—especially cats.  They have higher quality meat food than many humans.  So when are the enviros and global warming advocates going to say “Your pet goes vegetarian or your pet goes.  Keeping your meat-eating pet is evil and you’re a bad person for doing so”?  The day arrived.

Okay, the article doesn’t quite say that.  It does clearly imply this.  Worse, those fluffy critters are given 25 to 30% of the blame for meat consumption.  This makes Fido and Fluffy clear threats to the future of this planet.  You pet owners are so very selfish and uncaring out there.  Time to dump the pets and save the planet.  (Yes, we know you think Fido is a member of the family.  You can keep Fido until he dies, but NO MORE PETS if you care about the planet.)

It is possible you could have a hamster or guinea pig, something that does not eat meat.  However, keep in mind that there have been suggestions that eating such things as mice and rats could provide meat without the environmental impact.  Your pet could become some true believer’s next meal if things get dicey.  Best to just get a pet rock.  Those are much more environmentally friendly.

Lack of pets will give you all more time to sit and watch the latest Al Gore fiction and reflect on why saving the planet matters if life on the planet is so dreary and useless without pets, cars, planes and lights.

(See: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/dog-made-global-warming/ )

scan0077

The Latest Threat to the Planet

What if

What if Einstein and Heisenberg behaved as climate scientists do?

Einstein: Heisenberg, I see some possible flaws in your uncertainty principle.

Heisenberg: Excuse me. There are no flaws. 97% of physicists agree with my analysis.

E: But God does not throw dice.

H: There’s no god and those dice exist only because we observe them.

E: That seems a catch 22. How do we know the dice weren’t there if when we observe them, they magically appear?

H: You’ve been palling around with that idiot Schroedinger and his cat thing, haven’t you?

E: I think he may have a point.

H: No-he’s an idiot. Everyone knows that. He’s just being mean and obnoxious because he’s too stupid to understand my theory.

E: But he’s a physicist. So am I.

H: You don’t work in the field. You don’t publish. You’re all theory and no publishing.

E: What does that mean?

H: It means you are not an expert and you should learn to respect experts.

E: Seriously?

H: Yes, seriously. My calculations show specifically and certainly that particles do not exist until they are observed.

E: That makes no sense. Your calculations must be off.

H: Science denier! My calculations are absolutely accurate.

E: Can I see them?

H: NO! You’re a science denier. You’re just trying to ruin my theory because it explains more than yours.

E: I just want to check.

H: NEVER! My calculations have been checked by my peers and they agree with my conclusions.

E: Science is about verification.

H: You said my theory was a catch 22—not verifiable. You lose. I win. Now, nor more denier talk about God or dice. GOT IT?

 

I cant’ take it anymore……

Pulp fiction psychology

Wattsupwiththat.com had a discussion on an article in SOCIETY FOR PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY.   Matthew Hornsey (University of Queensland) described behaviour of skeptics as “thinking like a lawyer,” in that people cherry-pick which pieces of information to pay attention to “in order to reach conclusions that they want to be true.”  Right after he says skeptics are just as smart or smarter than warmists.  Interesting that he completely ignores that reality and dives into “you’re wrong, we’re right and  you must be defective if you disagree”.

Of all the areas of science, global warming has devolved the quickest into pulp fiction psychology.  Unable to present a cogent, scientific argument, but allowing no possibility the theory might be wrong, only that people “don’t understand” or they would agree, believers have dived into “it’s your politics or your religion or your mood today”.  Anything but that the theory is just not proven.

Since skeptics are at least as smart as global warming believers, this argument is not going to change the mind of any skeptic.  They will immediately see projection or desperation, anything but a real reason to not believe the theory, say like lack of open discussion, all data “adjusted” or “lost” in many cases, all the normal things science has a basis.  Believers go so far as to say they won’t release data because skeptics will only try to prove them wrong.  Neon sign “WE MIGHT BE WRONG AND WE AREN’T GOING TO LET YOU FIND OUT”.  Come on, we’re smart people.  We see the desperation.

Some commenters will refer to “cognitive dissonance” (on both sides) but cognitive dissonance is a very specific psychological term.  It applies to people who pretend to believe or not believe based on those around them.  If the entire family believes except one, the one will often go along, which can create cognitive dissonance if the person feels guilt for lying about what they believe.  Often, the person will end up changing sides to stop the guilty feelings.  It’s a response to bullying and group-think in some cases.

Then there’s double-think, which is holding two contradictory ideas both to be true.  There is NO dissonance.  The person simply believes both.  An example is climate skeptics are “deniers of science” but anti-vaxxers are enlightened people.  In one case, the science is followed, in the other, denied.  Based on who knows what?  The ideas are contradictory because one says science is always right and the other says science is wrong.

Another example is something I ran into on Facebook:  You teach a child not to be violent, not to harm animals and small children, by beating the hell out of him for throwing a kitten against the wall.  That level of double-think boarders on psychotic.

Pulp psychology techniques have become the trademark of global warming.  The science FAILED and failed miserably.  So intimidation, bullying, psyching people out are all that’s left.  Honestly, it’s like the last remnant of the Flat Earth Society trying to pass laws and/or bribe people into saying the earth is flat lest they be proven wrong.  After all, global warming CANNOT be wrong.  EVER.

Sure.

dscn3694

They’re just trying to scare us.

scan0015

Told you they were just kidding.  Wind had nothing to do with this.  Really.

If only the warning had been worded to match the politics, religion and so forth of the driver, he would not have ignored the sign.  Or maybe the driver is just oblivious to reality?

 

Just when you thought there was hope, out comes the rediculous.

 

Skeptics_v_Realists

Realistics, no.  True believers, yes.  Maybe if it didn’t fit their politics so well…..

Antiscience? Not.

Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger

WtD currently (as of 10 AM today) has an article on anti-science and some psychobabble about “stages of denial”. Again, it’s based on the 97% of scientists with the appropriate degree who publish in the proper peer-reviewed journals agreeing AGW is real. As I have noted, the qualifications can be waived if scientists agree with AGW and write an article that will help the cause (as in Cook, Lewendoski and Marcott). This appears to be central to the entire theory—the “in” crowd agrees and so should you.

First, psychology and consensus have NOTHING to do with the truth or falsity of a scientific hypothesis/theory. Psychology and consensus are employed to “sell” something. For example—4 out of 5 dentists recommend “Brand X” toothpaste. Unless the dentists are doing this based on scientific evidence that brand X is best (and can produce the research to prove it), it’s nothing more than a toothpaste popularity contest.

There used to be commercials stating more hospitals used Tylenol than any other pain reliever. There was also a report that Tylenol was cutting the hospitals a great deal on the cost of the Tylenol. Today, Tylenol no longer advertises this way—it turned out the “safe” painkiller used by more hospitals was actually toxic in large doses. The medication was added to narcotic painkillers and combination medications, resulting in unintentional overdosing. It was not the “safe, trusted” painkiller that was endorsed by hospitals. Hospitals agreed—consensus existed. Tylenol was safe….but then it wasn’t.

Had someone actually questioned why there was agreement, perhaps the reality of the lack of safety in Tylenol would have come out sooner. Research and experience had always shown acetaminophen was toxic in large doses, due to liver damage. If there had been inquiries into the research and hospitals were asked to prove the safety and usefulness of the product, perhaps fewer overdoses would have occurred. The manufacturer of Tylenol later had commercials saying it was safe IF used as directed, a much more honest statement. At least safety was conditional.

Scientific truth is not determined by endorsement or consensus. It is determined by data, how well any models used predict and match reality, how much data exists versus how much is modeling (hint: the word “model” is prevalent in most AGW research.) A computer model is not a FACT. It’s not real. It’s at best an hypothesis, at worst, a fantasy. So not believing AGW is actually not putting faith in computer models and statistical probability. It is recognition of the limits of statistics and the use of modeling in trying to predict complex phenomena. It is the recognition of the validity of research based on its actual content and not who wrote. It is not a denial of science, scientific method or actual facts in evidence.

This may explain the shift from science in AGW to psychobabble and non-scientific terms like “extreme weather” (There was a study that tried to quantify this without a lot of success—I do give them credit for at least trying.)  If you can’t prove something with actual data, dazzle ’em with psychobabble and scare ’em with “extreme”.