Remember me
▼ Content

there is no average Earth temperature


there is no average Earth temperature22-09-2016 00:23
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
Different altitude has different air density and different temperature. Water has different temperature compared to land. Different land forms have different temperatures. Different waters have different depths and different temperatures. Air and water are the two biggest factors affecting temperature. Average temperature is meaningless.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-114.19,21.67,274/loc=-155.809,59.639
Edited on 22-09-2016 00:23
22-09-2016 00:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Which is why climate scientists talk about a global surface temperature anomaly, not an average Earth temperature.
22-09-2016 00:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Let me guess. I bet this'll be the response by IB/Into.

"But anomalies are confusing! They aren't derivable from basic high school science! They must be part of the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy! Your WACKY religion requires that you believe this unfalsifiable idea so that they can take control of the government!"
22-09-2016 00:37
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
Surface Detail wrote:
Which is why climate scientists talk about a global surface temperature anomaly, not an average Earth temperature.


There is no anomaly without a normal. Normal is average.
22-09-2016 00:42
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Which is why climate scientists talk about a global surface temperature anomaly, not an average Earth temperature.


There is no anomaly without a normal. Normal is average.

No, the baseline is arbitrary when you're only interested in changes. NASA typically uses the average of temperature measurements taken during the period 1951-1980 as its baseline, but there's no reason why you couldn't use some other baseline if you wanted to.
22-09-2016 00:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Anomalies are common in other sciences, for when the absolute accuracy of an instrument is far below its relative accuracy over time - that is, the curve is the right shape, but it should be shifted up a [unit].
22-09-2016 01:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
Surface Detail wrote:
Which is why climate scientists talk about a global surface temperature anomaly, not an average Earth temperature.


You can't assume a variance without an average, stupid.

You can't have an average without using absolute temperature data.

Every average has a margin of error. That number affects the meaning of the variance as well.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 01:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Which is why climate scientists talk about a global surface temperature anomaly, not an average Earth temperature.


There is no anomaly without a normal. Normal is average.

No, the baseline is arbitrary when you're only interested in changes. NASA typically uses the average of temperature measurements taken during the period 1951-1980 as its baseline, but there's no reason why you couldn't use some other baseline if you wanted to.


Tai Hai Chen has it more correct than you do. You are trying to argue a base rate fallacy. You are also ignoring that the trend you are arguing is subject to the same failures in statistics as the absolute data is.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 01:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Anomalies are common in other sciences, for when the absolute accuracy of an instrument is far below its relative accuracy over time - that is, the curve is the right shape, but it should be shifted up a [unit].


This is a non-sensical argument. There is no instrument that has a greater accuracy over a relative time than the absolute measurement itself, regardless of unit chosen.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 01:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Sure there is. It's easy to compare measurements from Instrument A to other measurements from Instrument A. Calibration can be difficult.
22-09-2016 04:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Which is why climate scientists talk about a global surface temperature anomaly, not an average Earth temperature.


You can't assume a variance without an average, stupid.

You can't have an average without using absolute temperature data.

Every average has a margin of error. That number affects the meaning of the variance as well.


Excellent encapsulation.

Excellent post.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 11:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Sure there is. It's easy to compare measurements from Instrument A to other measurements from Instrument A. Calibration can be difficult.


Calibration is not just by offset, but by scale as well.

Even more importantly, instrument A doesn't tell anything except what instrument A is doing. An unrelated instrument B is not necessarily going to follow.

You are just back where you were with the statistics problem you can't seem to wrap your head around, except this time the data you summarize is forever just a delta that you can't translate back into absolute values.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 22-09-2016 11:35
22-09-2016 14:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Which is why climate scientists talk about a global surface temperature anomaly, not an average Earth temperature.


There is no anomaly without a normal. Normal is average.

No, the baseline is arbitrary when you're only interested in changes. NASA typically uses the average of temperature measurements taken during the period 1951-1980 as its baseline, but there's no reason why you couldn't use some other baseline if you wanted to.


Tai Hai Chen has it more correct than you do. You are trying to argue a base rate fallacy. You are also ignoring that the trend you are arguing is subject to the same failures in statistics as the absolute data is.

Please explain how the base rate fallacy is applicable here.
22-09-2016 14:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Sure there is. It's easy to compare measurements from Instrument A to other measurements from Instrument A. Calibration can be difficult.


Calibration is not just by offset, but by scale as well.

Even more importantly, instrument A doesn't tell anything except what instrument A is doing. An unrelated instrument B is not necessarily going to follow.

You are just back where you were with the statistics problem you can't seem to wrap your head around, except this time the data you summarize is forever just a delta that you can't translate back into absolute values.


I can wrap my head around the statistics problem. Know what I can't wrap my head around? The assertion that if the data is geographically biased, there's nothing we can do - just throw it all out! Useless, useless, useless!

Calibration of scale and offset are distinct. One can be easy while the other is hard.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 22-09-2016 14:25
22-09-2016 16:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
jwoodward48 wrote:Know what I can't wrap my head around? The assertion that if the data is geographically biased, there's nothing we can do - just throw it all out! Useless, useless, useless!

What do you suggest be done with data that cannot ever be used to compute/conclude anything useful?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 23:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Trivial question. If it is useless than throw it out. My point is that sample bias does not invalidate data; it only increases the error.
23-09-2016 00:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Trivial question. If it is useless than throw it out. My point is that sample bias does not invalidate data; it only increases the error.


You are denying your own argument again.

1) larger sample size decreases error.
2) bias increases the error. The more bias (through larger sample size), the greater the error.

Now you just beginning to collect paradoxes. It is not possible to discuss anything sensible with a paradox as a starting point. You must clear your paradox.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 00:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Why would increasing the sample size increase the bias?

And furthermore, if you think that what you wrote is a paradox, go back to school - that sounds more like opposing forces at play. Things like that are present throughout all the world.
23-09-2016 01:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Why would increasing the sample size increase the bias?

By selecting biased elements, dope.
jwoodward48 wrote:
And furthermore, if you think that what you wrote is a paradox, go back to school - that sounds more like opposing forces at play. Things like that are present throughout all the world.

What you wrote is a paradox.

In any case, biased data DOES invalidate the summary.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 02:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Hey, Into just wrote something. There's something I don't understand in his post. I know! I'll ask him to elucidate himself a bit more! Alternatively, I could assume that he's wrong, or I could guess what he means and then refute that. Hmm, none of those sound good. Let's go with the first one. I mean, what could go wrong? He'll like it when I ask him things for the purpose of understanding, not just getting him to say something stupid. He probably won't even insult me this time. It's what he's been asking me to do. Yep, let's ask him.

aaaaand he gives me a three-word explanation that I could have said myself, plus an insult. Thanks a lot, Into. How about explaining how getting more data from existing places increases the bias? I get how in theory, more data can have more bias, but so can less data - using only one observation to represent the planet would be very biased! If we add more observatories, they're either near current ones or far from current ones. If they're near current ones, then we just have better coverage in that region, and we can use weighted averages over the larger area in order to avoid making that region matter more in the calculations. If they're not, then we've increased coverage. Sounds good, right?

Every data sample could be wrong. Should we ignore all data?
23-09-2016 05:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
jwoodward48 wrote:. How about explaining how getting more data from existing places increases the bias?

Let me science here for a moment.

Into the Night was pretty clear, but I can see how he might have misinterpreted your complete lack of any basis in fundamentals as you just messing with him. After all, you are a sarcastic and bulveristic ashsole who is forever playing the victim, and a scientifically illiterate moron who nonetheless argues with those who have a far superior understanding and who are trying to help, so it's normally the default assumption.

What Into the Night wrote first was that increasing the number of locations reduces error. Did you catch that?

If you think hard you might recall that he was talking about bias. I'll give you a moment to recall.

If a given instrument has a particular bias then increasing the number of that particular instrumentation increases the overall bias...which increases the overall error.

So...do you get it...or do you not?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 14:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Hmm. I'm looking at the above post, but it's completely blank. That's a shame. Maybe if it didn't include any insults or attacks on my intelligence, I would be able to read it.
23-09-2016 16:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
jwoodward48 wrote:Hmm. I'm looking at the above post, but it's completely blank. That's a shame. Maybe if it didn't include any insults or attacks on my intelligence, I would be able to read it.

I don't recall anyone ever accusing you of actually listening to differing viewpoints.

I don't recall anyone ever accusing you of positive contributions to the forum.

I do recall, however, our self-declared Omni-educated Brit expressing how impressed he was with your level of education.

Too funny.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 18:27
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, considering that you don't even know what Planck's Law is, I'm not really considering your opinion of literacy.
23-09-2016 19:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
jwoodward48 wrote:Well, considering that you don't even know what Planck's Law is, I'm not really considering your opinion of literacy.

Aaaah, you think I care about your opinion of me. My recommendation is that you not hold your breath until I do care.

So, amaze me with your "climate" science acumen. Post it here for scrutiny and discussion.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-09-2016 01:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I don't have any.

The point that I'd like to make today is that asking questions is good, and you shouldn't insult people for doing so. Trying to understand other people's thoughts and statements is good, and asking questions helps achieve this. Thus, asking questions is good.

"If you think hard you might recall that he was talking about bias. I'll give you a moment to recall."

Now, this. Regardless of how unintelligent my posts seemed back then, no matter how illiterate I seemed, this was uncalled for and unproductive. It just serves to provoke anger. My ability to open my mind and see your side happened despite this quote, not because of it.
24-09-2016 03:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
jwoodward48 wrote:Now, this. Regardless of how unintelligent my posts seemed back then, no matter how illiterate I seemed, this was uncalled for and unproductive.


It was totally called for. You had just come off of this:

jwoodward48 wrote:Well, considering that you don't even know what Planck's Law is, I'm not really considering your opinion of literacy.

I'm happy to let you set the tone.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-09-2016 03:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Oh. Considering that... It was called for, and on the topic of productiveness I can't claim to have clean hands. Never mind then.

Would you say that my recent tone shows improvement? (More than just this thread.)
24-09-2016 05:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Would you say that my recent tone shows improvement? (More than just this thread.)


In my opinion, your tone has vastly improved. I can now consider your restitution paid. Your apology is accepted.

Please remember, however, that insults still occasionally will be thrown. I can say in my case these are not going to be personal ones anymore, but the nature of the contention in this subject may cause offensive terminology. This is the double standard that cannot be removed by anyone. It exists and none of us can do anything about it.

Take such offense with a grain of salt. I am not politically correct. I have no plans to be. We still have some violent disagreements between us, but I can discuss things on a much better footing with you now.

For now, welcome back to fresher air, and thank you for making such a tremendous effort. I know such things are not easy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-09-2016 05:50
24-09-2016 07:20
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Thanks. I too dislike the concept of "political correctness", so a bit of language that seems insulting won't lead to much if it's up to me. (Barring overt, extreme racism etc., naturally.)
24-09-2016 11:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Thanks. I too dislike the concept of "political correctness", so a bit of language that seems insulting won't lead to much if it's up to me. (Barring overt, extreme racism etc., naturally.)


The subject of racism may come up. I don't know what race you are, and I don't care. If it does, don't take it personally.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2016 15:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, I was talking about, say, Hitleresque rants about how the Jews or the Mexicans or whomever are evil and should be exterminated. I don't consider that very likely to come up, eh?
24-09-2016 20:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Well, I was talking about, say, Hitleresque rants about how the Jews or the Mexicans or whomever are evil and should be exterminated. I don't consider that very likely to come up, eh?


It's come up before in this forum. I see no reason why it won't come up again.

No matter. I'm just glad we are talking on a more civil level again.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate there is no average Earth temperature:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
Earth surface temperature measurements9325-09-2019 19:46
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
If CO2 have higher temperature than O2 and N2 in the air?317-09-2019 00:37
Earths Temperature114-08-2019 20:08
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact