Global Temperature Change, baseline in History

[Diamond]

He's basically saying that because you can't measure the 'global average', any measurement is useless.

There are two simple ways around this, which have been mentioned previously, because scientists have usually thought about such things before people on blogs do.

Use anomolies. Then you just have to measure changes at one point. Average all those changes, and you have a measurement that's quite good.

Wrong. You've misunderstood completely what the article says. Just because you can measure the radiative property of something DOES NOT MEAN that a physical temperature exists.

Recall that the earth is a chaotic system, but overall, as a body, it absorbs and re-emits radiation. That can also be measured.

Wrong. The earth is not in, or anywhere near equilibrium. Hence it has no definite temperature, regardless of scale.

That even a chaotic system, with enough samples, will have a representative value for temperature, if you have enough samples and they are taken over a long enough time. They won't ever give you the 'average' temperature, if what you want is the average of all places on the earth at ground level, but they will let you detect and measure warming or cooling.

These aren't any more meaningless than the temperature gauge on your car dashboard. What does it measure? One single point on the whole engine. Is it an important measurement? Definitely.

It measures a small sample of air which is assumed to be in equilibrium for the short time it is measured.

But for the length of the journey, the measurement of temperature does not mean that a definite physical temperature exists.

In a non-equilibrium system, there is no known constructive procedure which produces a temperature which is physically meaningful (I mean referring to the laws of physics).

So what mhaze has pointed out is that before we get hung up on temperature measurements to a hundredth of a degree, remember that the combination of temperature measurements (usually by averaging) has no theoretic meaning whatsoever.

 

[a_unique_person]

Wrong. You've misunderstood completely what the article says. Just because you can measure the radiative property of something DOES NOT MEAN that a physical temperature exists.




Wrong. The earth is not in, or anywhere near equilibrium. Hence it has no definite temperature, regardless of scale.



It measures a small sample of air which is assumed to be in equilibrium for the short time it is measured.

But for the length of the journey, the measurement of temperature does not mean that a definite physical temperature exists.

In a non-equilibrium system, there is no known constructive procedure which produces a temperature which is physically meaningful (I mean referring to the laws of physics).

So what mhaze has pointed out is that before we get hung up on temperature measurements to a hundredth of a degree, remember that the combination of temperature measurements (usually by averaging) has no theoretic meaning whatsoever.

That's strange, all the deniers I know have been telling me that it's been cooling since 1998.

 

[Dancing David]

Right, you pulled two refs that did not address the subject.

shop that dendrochronologists take it into account.

Is that your claim? I only pointed out the time sequence was backwards for that.

Sincerity/ Rude/etc

If you fling condescending gratuitous stuff you get it right back.

Where does O18 come from? What's there to explain?

So you demonstrate that you don't care for critical thinking, which is no surprise. I see that you aren't here to be critical of your own thought. It is a reasonable idea that the O*18 indication based upon aggregate temperature of the leaf might influence other factors of tree ring growth, however reasonable is not the same as demonstrated. Many reasonable ideas turn out to be wrong and in this case it could be that you are over generalizing.

So that would put it into the tentative category as an idea, because it is one without supporting evidence.

No where did I say that you had made a claim that was extraordinary, I said that you made a claim. I then said that the burden was upon you to demonstrate, you then showed the caliber of both your critical thinking and ability to engage in a discussion.

Funny that, a sceptics bulletin board that commonly contains calls for evidence and that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, then you get all bent out of shape and make further appeals top emotion and diversion to support your lack of evidence.

 

[Dancing David]

Wrong. You've misunderstood completely what the article says. Just because you can measure the radiative property of something DOES NOT MEAN that a physical temperature exists.




Wrong. The earth is not in, or anywhere near equilibrium. Hence it has no definite temperature, regardless of scale.



It measures a small sample of air which is assumed to be in equilibrium for the short time it is measured.

But for the length of the journey, the measurement of temperature does not mean that a definite physical temperature exists.

In a non-equilibrium system, there is no known constructive procedure which produces a temperature which is physically meaningful (I mean referring to the laws of physics).

So what mhaze has pointed out is that before we get hung up on temperature measurements to a hundredth of a degree, remember that the combination of temperature measurements (usually by averaging) has no theoretic meaning whatsoever.

Thank you for your lack of irrational behavior, please continue in this reasonable fashion.

I too on the surface was not sure what meaning the paper that Mhaze cited had to the discussion. It seemed to be saying that you just couldn't make a measurement in this fashion.

So I will ask you to clarify some of this for me, because it doesn't make sense to me, the idea that an aggregate temperature in a large chaotic system may be an artifact I can understand, but the dismissisal of it as a potential indicator I don't.

I understand the sample is rather limited in data points, which is unavoidable at this time.

But the paper Mhaze referenced just seemed to be saying that the data had no meaning at all.

So:

If say someplace in a system has relatively stable conditions (Antarctic ice shelf) and that you take measurements there of CO₂ level trapped in the ice that is a fairly good sample, correct?

But if you take a temperature sample from a proxy in a certain area then that might not indicate a large scale temperature shift but a local one?

So would it then be reasonable to try to compensate for this:

1. By looking for proxies that have a larger geographical extent? (Especially things like cores from the ocean floor which hopefully have a response to a large area effect)

2. by increasing the data points in the sample of a perhaps unreliable indicator because of local constraints? (Trees at the snow line, which I am not aware of how local to area plays out)

Or is it just an argument that because of the disparate conditions in a large chaotic system that an overall artifact like temperature is not a useful an indicator of the behavior of the overall system?

3. Is it possible that larger samples would again tend to compensate for this?

4. Would an aggregate of change in temperature that is 'averaged' to indicate a trend change in a sample of local temperatures be more meaningful?

The point that has me stuck is the idea that while the idea of 'global mean temperature' might not have an actual physical point of comparison, it is an artifact of abstraction, it still represents a sample of the behavior of this large system. And so while it may not be as accurate as an artifact based upon a much larger sample of data point, it still might have meaning.

Thanks.

 

[mhaze]

So you demonstrate that you don't care for critical thinking, which is no surprise. I see that you aren't here to be critical of your own thought. It is a reasonable idea that the O*18 indication based upon aggregate temperature of the leaf might influence other factors of tree ring growth, however reasonable is not the same as demonstrated. Many reasonable ideas turn out to be wrong and in this case it could be that you are over generalizing.

So that would put it into the tentative category as an idea, because it is one without supporting evidence.

No where did I say that you had made a claim that was extraordinary, I said that you made a claim. I then said that the burden was upon you to demonstrate, you then showed the caliber of both your critical thinking and ability to engage in a discussion.

Funny that, a sceptics bulletin board that commonly contains calls for evidence and that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, then you get all bent out of shape and make further appeals top emotion and diversion to support your lack of evidence.

Fine.

Reasonable= acceptable,
extraordinary=hyperbole.

"Baskets of feelings", bluster, opining about personality, endless prosceletizing about claims , blurred vague comments about critical thinking, is of no interest, rejected.

Dodge techniques to avoid the subject, it would seem.

 

[CapelDodger]

Revisionist history specialist, eh ? Since 1984?

I've been reading history all my reading life (fifty years or so), I was blessed with good teachers (one I would describe as "inspiring"), and I have spent many happy hours discussing the subject with knowledgeable people. And I have a functioning intellect which is not constrained by any ideology, religion, or nationalism.

Don't project your own sorry state onto me. We could not be more different.

Psychological projection (from your own waist high vantage point).

Skeptics herd about as well as cats, now Warmologists herd nicely.

My description of the LIA fiasco is entirely accurate, which is presumably why this sad effort is your only response.

 

[CapelDodger]

You b*****d! I'm off to bed now with an image in my head that I don't want to be there!

 

[mhaze]

My description of the LIA fiasco is entirely accurate, which is presumably why this sad effort is your only response.

I'll help. Grab a bunch of O18 based tree ring studies, generate a climatic baseline for a thousand years or two. Now the baseline is nice and flat and really looks just like red noise. Now splice onto the last 150 years or so, the thermometer record. Support this with your revisionist history of the LIA.

You've got unprecedented modern warming!!!!!

Add some prophecies of doom yet to come! Use the Ten Year Sliding Timetable of Doom, it cannot be disproven.

Except that has been pretty well debunked, hasn't it? The O18 based records read only that plants tend toward a constant leaf temperature and do not show the actual temperature variation. The actual temperatures of the MWP and LIA are not shown. The modern period is not shown to be outside the realm of historical temperatures. No conclusion can be made from the data as presented.

Sad is the theory of your Warmology efforts.

Thus we move to...

"But the sea ice! The polar bears! The glaciers!"

 

[mhaze]

Thank you for your lack of irrational behavior, please continue in this reasonable fashion.

I too on the surface was not sure what meaning the paper that Mhaze cited had....The point that has me stuck is the idea that while the idea of 'global mean temperature' might not have an actual physical point of comparison, it is an artifact of abstraction, it still represents a sample of the behavior of this large system. And so while it may not be as accurate as an artifact based upon a much larger sample of data point, it still might have meaning.

Thanks.

Yes, let's continue. Let us say you take a wireless thermometer which records to your computer, and you place it in the air in a teapot in which the water level stays relatively constant. Some time check the data acquisition log. We seek to know the total heat content in the coffeepot, which would be

Q total = Q air + Q coffee + Q container
​

which given heat constants for air, coffee (water) and glass, can be calculated - if we know the temperatures of the air, coffee and container.

Thermodynamic state at various moments in time is desired to be known,

q1, q2, q3 etc.
​

Energy input to effect changes in these states is

Change in Q(q1 to q2) = Q input(hotplate energy) - Q output(radiative losses)
​

The homework problem is to prove whether Q total at a moment in time can be found. If so, then the Change in Q(q1 to q2) can be found.

State whether the goal can be achieved given the following constraints:

• Of the system temperatures, only T(air) is known.
• Q(water or coffee) approximately 2000 x Q(air).
• Hotplate energy = known
• Radiative losses = unknown, guesses are available

If the goal can be achieved, write the equation. If the goal cannot be achieved, state why. No ducking and dodging or appeals to Authority, please.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, let's continue. Let us say you take a wireless thermometer which records to your computer, and you place it in the air in a teapot in which the water level stays relatively constant. Some time check the data acquisition log. We seek to know the total heat content in the coffeepot, which would be

Q total = Q air + Q coffee + Q container
​

which given heat constants for air, coffee (water) and glass, can be calculated - if we know the temperatures of the air, coffee and container.

Thermodynamic state at various moments in time is desired to be known,

q1, q2, q3 etc.
​

Energy input to effect changes in these states is

Change in Q(q1 to q2) = Q input(hotplate energy) - Q output(radiative losses)
​

The homework problem is to prove whether Q total at a moment in time can be found. If so, then the Change in Q(q1 to q2) can be found.

State whether the goal can be achieved given the following constraints:

• Of the system temperatures, only T(air) is known.
• Q(water or coffee) approximately 2000 x Q(air).
• Hotplate energy = known
• Radiative losses = unknown, guesses are available

If the goal can be achieved, write the equation. If the goal cannot be achieved, state why. No ducking and dodging or appeals to Authority, please.

Apparently you don't know what words like 'might' have as meaning.

If you would just tone down the hostility I might actualy be able to communicate with you, I am not aware of the methods used to derive the spaghetti graph and frankly I don't take it as gospel.

Your analog or metaphor of the teapot is interesting and not totaly accurate, as all metaphors are prone to error.

Now what if the tea pot was situated in a place where it gained energy on a daily basis, assuming that the water does not evaporate, what could we learn about the ambient temperature of the fluid in the tea pot.

Well, not much other than the ambient temperature of the tea pot, is what I would say. Gee, that is so ever the top ins't it? I am just oozing with the evil essence of hockey stick of doom, eh?

So again I am interested in discussing the eory that you referenced it just doesn't make sense to me. Now is what you are trying to say something like this:

If we have of randotm teapots scattered around a certain area then taking an average of the teapots temperature might not give us a true idea of the temperature of the area?

Obviously if one teapot is near a heat source, then it would have a higher reading than the other. And we can't know the reasons that a temperature rises and falls unless we know more about the situation?

If you were not so dead set on your agressive stance, you might find that at some points I will agree with.

So , how are you coming, can you show that the O*18 issue in tree rings is related to other issues? Please note :I did not disagree with you I merely asked you to substantiate your claim. But please continue to wrestle your demons and blame them on others.

 

[Dancing David]

I'll help. Grab a bunch of O18 based tree ring studies, generate a climatic baseline for a thousand years or two. Now the baseline is nice and flat and really looks just like red noise. Now splice onto the last 150 years or so, the thermometer record. Support this with your revisionist history of the LIA.

You've got unprecedented modern warming!!!!!

Add some prophecies of doom yet to come! Use the Ten Year Sliding Timetable of Doom, it cannot be disproven.

Except that has been pretty well debunked, hasn't it? The O18 based records read only that plants tend toward a constant leaf temperature and do not show the actual temperature variation. The actual temperatures of the MWP and LIA are not shown. The modern period is not shown to be outside the realm of historical temperatures. No conclusion can be made from the data as presented.

Sad is the theory of your Warmology efforts.

Thus we move to...

"But the sea ice! The polar bears! The glaciers!"

Please desist in this derail and ranting, i would prefer not to have the thread moderated.

 

[Dancing David]

Mhaze, i have spent some time looking but will have to continue, most dendrochronology is not used as a gauge of ambient temperature and tree growth, so I will have refine my search which will mean looking at the base data of the spaghetti graph and it's orgin.

Again i am not out to defend it, just to undersatnd what the evidence is involved.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'll help.

Help yourself first.

To quote myself, just to clarify what I meant by "fiasco"

'Something I noticed very early on. I'm old enough to have watched the whole process. The initial assault on Mann et al was led by "It doesn't show the LIA that we know was really severe even though we're historical ignoramuses - Frost Fairs, yadda yadda". You guys started with your emotions and your serious lack of grounding, you turned your perception of the LIA on the scientific (and historical) representation as an assault weapon, and where did it get you? On your knees in front of Steve McIntyre, apparently.'

What's wrong with that?

Grab a bunch of O18 based tree ring studies, generate a climatic baseline for a thousand years or two. Now the baseline is nice and flat and really looks just like red noise. Now splice onto the last 150 years or so, the thermometer record. Support this with your revisionist history of the LIA.

My understanding of the LIA isn't revisionist, and your attempts at sounding siency are risible. You really should drop that. I knew before I left school that the LIA was very questionable as a global phaenomenon of consequence, and questionable as to its real impact in Europe - where lots of other very disruptive stuff was going on and the contemporary sources were prone to apocalypticism and hyperbole. That's mainstream stuff.

You've got unprecedented modern warming!!!!!

We've all got unprecedented warming. Whatever the normal baseline, we're well adrift of it.

Add some prophecies of doom yet to come! Use the Ten Year Sliding Timetable of Doom, it cannot be disproven.

Your rhetoric does you no favours either.

Except that has been pretty well debunked, hasn't it? The O18 based records read only that plants tend toward a constant leaf temperature and do not show the actual temperature variation.

The leap from leaf temperature to growth-rings in trees - this is dendrochronolgy-related, isn't it? - is a bit wide for me; could you fill in a bit?

The actual temperatures of the MWP and LIA are not shown. The modern period is not shown to be outside the realm of historical temperatures. No conclusion can be made from the data as presented.

The actual temperatures of the MWP and LIA matter as little as do the temperatures of today; what matters is the impact of climate change. The modern period is most certainly outside the realm of normal climate change impacts in historical times.

Whatever the normal baseline is, we're well adrift of it.

 

[David Rodale]

Help yourself first.

To quote myself, just to clarify what I meant by "fiasco"



What's wrong with that?



My understanding of the LIA isn't revisionist, and your attempts at sounding siency are risible. You really should drop that. I knew before I left school that the LIA was very questionable as a global phaenomenon of consequence, and questionable as to its real impact in Europe - where lots of other very disruptive stuff was going on and the contemporary sources were prone to apocalypticism and hyperbole. That's mainstream stuff.



We've all got unprecedented warming. Whatever the normal baseline, we're well adrift of it.



Your rhetoric does you no favours either.



The leap from leaf temperature to growth-rings in trees - this is dendrochronolgy-related, isn't it? - is a bit wide for me; could you fill in a bit?



The actual temperatures of the MWP and LIA matter as little as do the temperatures of today; what matters is the impact of climate change. The modern period is most certainly outside the realm of normal climate change impacts in historical times.

Whatever the normal baseline is, we're well adrift of it.

You are entitled to your opinion course, but then you also said clouds are not relevant

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry, I know this has been hashed in other places, but here in Ander et al. 2005,
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MobergEtAl2005.pdf
on pg 616 in the chart of the very bottom left where is says low res with uncertainty: these are the data for the non tree ring very broad time sample correct?

 

[CapelDodger]

You are entitled to your opinion course, but then you also said clouds are not relevant

No, I didn't. You claimed that clouds are water-vapour; I pointed out that they aren't.

 

[mhaze]

The leap from leaf temperature to growth-rings in trees - this is dendrochronolgy-related, isn't it? - is a bit wide for me; could you fill in a bit?

The assumption that O18 isotope in tree rings is a proxy for temperature appears falsified. As Dancing David and I point out, this may extend to all tree ring datasets as proxy for temperature, but the scientists have not said that at this point.

On reflection, what this means is that all of the tree ring datasets would need to be recalibrated with new error bounds (which would likely be so wide as to be unusable). In turn all of the multiproxy studies using these data sets would need to be redone.

Regarding your MIA and LIA, trees maintaining a temperature balance would result in data sets that made the MIA and LIA look like less of a deviation from the "normal" than was actually the case.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Yes, let's continue. Let us say you take a wireless thermometer which records to your computer, and you place it in the air in a teapot in which the water level stays relatively constant. Some time check the data acquisition log. We seek to know the total heat content in the coffeepot, which would be

Q total = Q air + Q coffee + Q container
​

which given heat constants for air, coffee (water) and glass, can be calculated - if we know the temperatures of the air, coffee and container.

Thermodynamic state at various moments in time is desired to be known,

q1, q2, q3 etc.
​

Energy input to effect changes in these states is

Change in Q(q1 to q2) = Q input(hotplate energy) - Q output(radiative losses)
​

The homework problem is to prove whether Q total at a moment in time can be found. If so, then the Change in Q(q1 to q2) can be found.

State whether the goal can be achieved given the following constraints:

• Of the system temperatures, only T(air) is known.
• Q(water or coffee) approximately 2000 x Q(air).
• Hotplate energy = known
• Radiative losses = unknown, guesses are available

If the goal can be achieved, write the equation.

​

Origionally posted by Dancing David:
Your analog or metaphor of the teapot is interesting and not totaly accurate, as all metaphors are prone to error.

Now what if the tea pot was situated in a place where it gained energy on a daily basis, assuming that the water does not evaporate, what could we learn about the ambient temperature of the fluid in the tea pot.

Well, not much other than the ambient temperature of the tea pot, is what I would say. .... If we have of randotm teapots scattered around a certain area then taking an average of the teapots temperature might not give us a true idea of the temperature of the area?

Obviously if one teapot is near a heat source, then it would have a higher reading than the other. And we can't know the reasons that a temperature rises and falls unless we know more about the situation?

What the scenario is intended to do is to show that you cannot mathematically calculate the total heat content of the system (air + liquid + container) from a measurement of the air above the liquid.

Here is yet another analogy.

You have an oven, and there is a temperature sensor inside it. This usually regulates temperature within plus or minus 5C. It measures air temperature.

Now you have a meat thermometer, and the goal is to cook steaks. Let's say this is done by sticking the meat thermometer into the steak, and pulling the steaks out when the reading internal to the meat is 180 degrees F. This is way more precise than the oven thermostat and actually is a measure of heat content, isn't it? (since the mass of the steak is known, and the temperature of the steak is rising).

More importantly, we know the meat thermometer works very well (that is, if you don't know how to just feel the steak and thus know how well done it is).

The historical temperature measurements and the attempt to figure the planetary temperature from them, are like the thermocouple in the oven that reads the air temperature. The first number you want is the internal temperature of the oceans (steak) in past eras. Then from that, you can calculate the changes in heat content of the planet.

If this is difficult to understand just take the reverse and think it out:

1. You work for a chef as a cook.
2. You are given steaks to cook, and are told to pull them out when the internal temperature is 180F.
3. You decide to use as a sensor one or many thermocouples in the air above the steak.
4. You devise a scheme by which you believe that you can figure that internal temperature of the steaks and when it is 180F. And proceed to cook your steaks and pull them out when the thermocouples read according to your theory.
5. The steaks vary from raw to burnt and the customers are all angry.
6. The chef is no fool and fires you.

Air temperature measurements can't give you total heat content of a system with gas, liquid and solid components...Perhaps this metafor makes more sense?

 

[David Rodale]

No, I didn't. You claimed that clouds are water-vapour; I pointed out that they aren't.

Please point out where I made such a claim. You on the other hand make numerous spurious statements and expect nobody to call you on it. What exactly do you mean clouds are not irrelevant? With regard to what? Since you didn’t qualify the statement, can one assume you think changes in cloud cover don’t have a measurable impact on weather or climate? Clarify your position better. There is little doubt it will be wrong, but give it a try.

You said:

Clouds, like rain, are liquid-phase phaenomena (ignoring ice-clouds, which represent a very small proportion of the H2O up there) and so are not relevant.

The post in question:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3841211&postcount=489

You are stuck in a paradigm of mistaken assumptions that atmospheric water vapor always results in a strong positive feedback. These assumptions, along with erroneous cloud feedback parameters, are built into climate models which are shown to be wrong.

Further, if the assumptions on the “enhanced greenhouse effect” resulting from increased levels of atmospheric CO2 were true, we should be seeing increased water vapor levels with altitude resulting in rising temperature trends with altitude as well. In fact, just the opposite is observed. Data available on request as always. For some odd reason, you refuse to acknowledge observational evidence and at the same time do not contribute any to support the CO2 AGW hypothesis.

Again, the latest peer reviewed (by climate modelers and agreeing with) research disagrees with your assumptions on water vapor and cloud feedback.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/2008JCLI2253.1
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Potential_Biases_In_Cloud_Feedback_Diagnosis.doc

Upcoming submitted peer review research:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-Sensitivity-Holy-Grail.htm

Science moves forward whether Warmologists do or not. Aqua satellite data is not the CO2 AGW believer’s friend.

It's really quite obvious. Sometimes pictures really do say 1000 words.

 

[mhaze]

Science moves forward whether Warmologists do or not. Aqua satellite data is not the CO2 AGW believer’s friend.

It's really quite obvious. Sometimes pictures really do say 1000 words.

Your picture illustrates a "Heat Pipe". Got one of those in my computer that very effectively moves heat away from the CPU. In your photo it obviously moves heat vertically.

Wait....

Where does that heat go? Not into an energy imbalance....