Rethinking Climate Change Metrics
The discussion surrounding global temperature anomalies and their role in climate science has sparked considerable controversy. Critics of the use of global temperature anomalies, which I am one of, as a primary metric for representing climate change argue that this approach can be reductionist and misleading, presenting relatively mild warming in a way that appears more alarming than it actually is. This article will investigate the reasons behind these claims, examining the scientific, statistical, and communication aspects of global temperature anomalies.
Global temperature anomalies are calculated by comparing the current global temperature with a baseline average, typically the average temperature over 30 years. By focusing on the difference between the current temperature and the baseline, anomalies can highlight trends and changes in the climate.
The use of global temperature anomalies is primarily driven by the need to provide a coherent and comparable way to track temperature changes across the entire planet. Absolute temperature measurements can vary widely from one location to another (see the figure below of temperature variation on a single day in China this month and then see my article about the absurdity of global average temperature)…
…and from one season to another, making it challenging to discern global trends from raw temperature data alone. Temperature anomalies are used to effectively normalize this data, allowing scientists to compare temperature changes in different regions and at different times to a common baseline (we will come back to the baseline problem). It is claimed that this approach helps to identify patterns of warming or cooling that may be indicative of broader climate trends, regardless of the inherent variability in absolute temperatures. However, this approach has its limitations.
One of my main criticisms is that the presentation of temperature anomalies can exaggerate the perceived significance of warming. Since the anomalies are often reported in degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit relative to a baseline, even small changes can appear dramatic. For example, a global temperature anomaly of 1°C over a century and a half is relatively minor but is presented as evidence of significant climate change. This creates a distorted perception of the severity of warming, especially when these figures are not contextualized within the natural variability of the Earth’s climate system.
Furthermore, the choice of baseline period can significantly affect the interpretation of temperature anomalies. Baselines are typically selected from a historical period of 30 years, as recommended by the World Meteorological Organization. However, the selection of a particularly cold or warm period as the baseline can make current temperatures appear more anomalous than they might be if a different baseline were chosen. This selection process can introduce bias or lead to accusations of manipulating data to emphasize a climate emergency narrative.
One controversial choice for a baseline is the use of a period within the Little Ice Age (LIA),
Source: Substack
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
S.C.
| #
The concept of monitoring ‘average global temperature’ seems ridiculous. Even if no one had any incentive to fudge the data, it might be impossible accurately calculate an average planetary surface temperature. Literally, it would require an accurate measurement at every point on earth to find average temperature, but I’d settle for a temp interval of every 10 km^2.
Plus, what is referred to as “average surface temperature” can vary widely based on:
1) The number of measurements taken. More measurements should mean better accuracy, but maybe not, because
2) Hot or cold areas can easily be, with or without intent, over/under-represented. Great care must be taken to prevent it, which, judging by recent trends, is not a reasonable expectation.
3) What constitutes “surface” as it pertains to average temperature is important. There is a lot of warm ocean around the equator, but what about the tops of mountains? How much weight is given to the average temp on Mt Everest? How much should be? There are millions of square miles of mountain ranges which are often at cold elevations. Are they included in the average?
Average global temperature is a guessing game at best, and junk science in reality, at least for now.
The only settled science facts are these : the sun is directly responsible for at least 90 percent of our climate, (probably more) including daily temperature cycles, the seasons, local and global fluid dynamics, and the amount of radiative energy in the atmosphere/ocean at any given moment. And,
Carbon is the foundation of life on earth. Not only is it safe, but our lives depend on it. Existential threat? Not even close.
Reply