The Absurdity Of Global Mean Temperature Metrics
Global mean temperature (GMT) and mean sea level (MSL) are frequently used as key indicators of ‘climate change’
However, a critical examination reveals that these metrics, while convenient for broad discussions, may lack scientific significance due to the immense variability and complexity of the Earth’s climate and geophysical systems.
Measuring the Global Mean Temperature
GMT is a widely utilized metric, serving as a generalized gauge of the Earth’s climatic health. It amalgamates temperature data from across the globe into a singular numerical representation.
However, this approach belies the inherent diversity and complexity of the Earth’s climate.
GMT is estimated using a combination of direct temperature measurements and statistical techniques. The primary sources of direct temperature data include:
- Surface Stations: A network of weather stations worldwide continuously records temperature data, providing in-situ observations of air temperature at the surface level.
- Buoys and Ships: Ocean-based observations are collected from buoys and ships that measure sea surface temperature, providing data from vast oceanic regions.
- Satellites: Satellite-based sensors measure the radiance emitted by the Earth’s surface and atmosphere, which is then converted into temperature estimates.
Extrapolation and Interpolation
Due to the uneven distribution of these direct measurements, particularly over sparsely populated areas like oceans and deserts, statistical techniques are employed to fill in the gaps and create a comprehensive global temperature dataset.
These techniques include:
- Interpolation: Interpolation involves filling in missing data points by estimating their values based on surrounding observations. This assumes that temperature changes gradually over space, allowing for a reasonable estimation of missing values.
- Extrapolation: Extrapolation involves estimating temperature values beyond the range of available observations. This is often used to extend temperature records back in time or to estimate temperatures in regions with limited data.
Proportion of Actual Measurements
The proportion of actual measurements in GMT datasets varies depending on the specific data source and processing methods.
In general, surface station data provides the most direct and reliable measurements, with a higher proportion of in-situ observations.
Satellite data, while covering a broader area, has a lower proportion of actual measurements due to the need to convert radiance into temperature estimates.
The IPCC estimates that around 60 percent of the data used to calculate GMT comes from direct measurements, while the remaining 40 percent is derived from interpolation and extrapolation.
This indicates that a significant portion of GMT is based on statistical estimates, rather than direct observations.
However, this assumes that a large area around each station is of constant temperature, an assumption known to be false.
In actuality, if we assume about a one-km area around each station, approximately 0.01 percent of Earth’s surface is directly measured for temperature.
Thus, approximately 99.99 percent is estimated through statistical methods.
Impact on GMT Accuracy
The relatively small proportion of direct temperature measurements raises questions about the accuracy of GMTas an indicator of global ‘climate change’.
The use of interpolation and extrapolation can introduce uncertainties into GMT estimates.
It is important to note that statistical techniques have been refined over time, improving the accuracy of interpolated and extrapolated data.
However, recent claims of knowing the GMT to the nearest hundredths [of a degree] have been challenged by leading climate scientists.
See more here climatechangedispatch
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.Â
Trackback from your site.
Tom
| #
I will only believe the global warming lies after there has been 100,000 years of untainted data. Not data from computer models that are always manipulated.
Reply
Alan
| #
Science is about the experiments or observations to prove a theory. Describe an experiment that confirms that an average temperature exists as a meaningful, physical quantity. Good luck with getting a total temperature. A calculated average temperature is just a statistic which has no physical meaning in science.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alan,
“Science is about the experiments or observations to prove a theory. ” No! Science is about the experiments or observations to DISprove a theory.
Have a good day
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
No Jerry science is as alan says, so as a hypothesis can move on to being theory, without experimentation and evidence there is no theory, just hypothesis, i.e. speculation.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Gary,
Yes, that is the first step, as in:
Hypothesis + Agreeing Experiments/Measurements … => Theory
The second step is what Jerry said:
Disagreeing Experiments/Measurements … => Voiding the Theory
Too many times today we see the second step being denounced as misinformation / conspiracy theories and what-not, conveniently replaced with “consensus” = a political mechanism, not scientific principle!
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Steve Titcombe
| #
Tony Heller, as always, is on top of the temperature scam:
https://youtu.be/AIgfzAgYDjE?si=jbW0lrmaEin_R7zD
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Readers,
Matthew wrote: “A network of weather stations worldwide continuously records temperature data, providing in-situ observations of air temperature at the surface level.” Which I partially believe is true, however I do not believe that a worldwide network is necessary. Atmosphere temperate is an issue because of the presently accepted idea known as the Greenhouse Effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide gas (GHE). The prediction of this theory (idea) is, if there were not carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere, the atmosphere’s temperature would be about 33C (56F) lower.
If one goes to this link, (https://raws.dri.edu), one will find a multitude of temperature data at a multitude of remote natural sites in the USA. But, you will also find that this project also measures the atmosphere”s DEW POINT TEMPERATURES. And if one compares these two measured atmospheric temperatures, one will find that the atmosphere’s temperature is never lower that the atmosphere’s dew point temperature. Thus, proving the GHE’s prediction to be absolutely wrong (incorrect).
Have a good day
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Jerry,
You’re correct in your conclusion; however, I think we should consider the air-borne water a very efficient BUFFER for the thermodynamic processes of the atmosphere — the dew point is just a measure of how much of this buffer is available…
E.g., I noticed many times that the frost point (dew point in freezing temps) does change dramatically even with lack of any significant wind — this change is not as pronounced in more temperate climates as the absolute humidity is much greater than in colder climates and the latent heat of evaporation is ~8x greater than that of melting (all water); but it still does happen!
Good evening and Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jako,
The dew point in no way inhibits the temperature of the air from increasing so Jerry’s so called law in no way disproves that the so called “greenhouse gases” could cause the atmosphere from becoming warmer.
The fact that every liter of rain that falls is the result of water removing 600,00 calories from the surface and transporting that heat into the stratosphere does show the GHGT to be ridiculous.
Herb
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Herb,
Your, and others’ comments, over the years here and there, made me to re-think / re-formulate my understanding of “water vapor,” that is below water’s boiling point (as in all atmospheric considerations); yet, in my mind, I still run the “model of water vapor” as a perfect gas in the Earth atmosphere — as only then the latent heats would fully apply. I always considered Steam Tables and such as typical engineering crutches for limping over the poorly understood phenomena, but have hard time to go beyond that… Well, I realize I’m too old a dog to learn these new tricks and, sort of, sticking to them 😉
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jako,
The state of water in the atmosphere is not really relevant to the dew point. It represents the temperature at which that amount of water in the air would constitutes 100% humidity. As long as the amount of water remains the same the temperature of the air can vary, rising or dropping, but the dew point will remain constant.
Herb.
JaKo
| #
Hi Herb,
I understand that; however, I have hard time calculating / estimating the energy to be released when the water “vapor” starts condensing — as you, and others, mentioned many times, not all water is in form of a gas, so how can we estimate the energy remaining in the water’s gaseous form? I’d say “impossible” — perhaps another “Water-Vapor-Table”?
What would Antoine de Saint-Exupéry do when no water would condense on his collectors at night in his bad incident over the Sahara Desert…
I think there would be no Little Prince.
Cheers, JaKo
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jako,
Water in the troposphere is not a gas below its boiling point.
Consider what happens when you boil water in a tea kettle. The water reaches 100C, then you must add 540 calories/gram to convert the water into a gas. The gas escapes the tea kettle as invisible clear steam, then on cooling turns into a fog of water droplets. With further cooling these droplets disappear. They are not absorbing the 540 calories/gram necessary to convert into steam but are absorbing heat as some water molecules convert into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions. These ions combine with other water molecules to form liquid crystals. It is like crystals forming as molten salt cools but the water liquid crystals are microscopic and cannot be seen. The micro crystals grow not by getting larger but by the hydroxyl outer shell getting thicker. Since the outer shell has a growing negative charge it is repelled by the negative charge of the surface of the Earth and rises in the atmosphere. (Tea kettle water condensing (losing heat) on the walls and ceiling.) Since the kinetic energy of air molecules increases with altitude (temperature divided by density) the liquid crystals will rise until they reach the second melt point of the liquid crystal. The melting occurs on the surface of the crystal and the negative ions remain stuck to the surface of the crystal by the attractive force of the hydronium ions in the liquid center. When the shell is breached the charges neutralize releasing the stored energy to be radiated into space. Heat is converted to electric energy then back to thermal energy in the water cycle.
Makes sense that the negative charge on the surface of melting water crystals would produce a repelling force, causing the surface of the Earth under a thundercloud to become positively charged.
Does that help you understand the energy flow from evaporating water. It explains why water evaporates even below its freezing point (sublimation).
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
It also explains why water, with a molecular weight of 16 (O2-32, N2-28) is confined to the troposphere (99+%) except when an underwater volcano creates superheated steam.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi JaKo and Herb,
“the dew point is just a measure of how much of this buffer is available…” But consider the Antarctic Continent which has a large plateau with elevations greater than 4000 meters (12000ft). To really learn about natural physical surface of this plateau.one must read Sir Edmund Hillary’s book “no Latitude For Error.” However common knowledge are the warm (everything is relative) katabatic winds which flow down the steep slopes at the edge of the plateau just as liquid water would if the air temperature were maybe 40-50F warmer.
Has any one ever asked–Where does this less dense air came from. For it is a well known fact that the atmosphere’s density decreases with increasing altitude. One must consider and ponder like this if one is going to begin to understand (explain) observed natural phenomena.
Have good day
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
The article makes sone important points and misses others.
Global Average Temperature (GAT) consists of almost no temperature data
A single average hides three important trends
(1) Time of day warming (mainly night)
(2) Tim of year warming (mainly 6 coldest months)
(3) Warming by latitude (mainly Northern half of the Northern Hemisphere … and NOT Antarctica)
Real data are raw temperature measurements
GAT consists of adjusted data and infilling.
Adjusted data are no longer real data — they are an estimate of what the real (raw) data would have been if measured correctly in the first place.
The alleged IPCC claim of 40% “infilling”, which I have never seen in 26 years of climate science reading, is contradicted by Tony Heller examining the US infilling of about 70% — Us is likely to be lower than other nations.
All that said, whether the GAT is accurate or not, the predictions of climate doom are NOT related to any historical average temperatures. The scary predictions call for a new climate called CAGW, that has never happened and is likely to never happen. CAGW predictions have been wrong since 1979.
I believe the great surface coverage of satellites allows them to be a much better measure of GAT than the heavily infilled government surface statistics, compiled by people I do not trust. The UAH satellite statistic are compiled by two private Ph.D. scientists voluntarily for no pay. And I trust them to be without bias.
Reply