Fudgin' Hanse Agrees, The Concept Of A Reliable Average Global Surface Temperature Is Absurd
nbzoo
November 19 2008
Accurately recording the temperature of a body that is not in equilibrium
can be complicated. Recording the average surface temperature of the earth
reliably, and with such accuracy that one can know with certainty that there
has been a less than one degree Celsius change over one hundred years,
probably impossible.
Dr Vincent Gray explains why, and begins at the very beginning with an
explanation of "temperature" and how it is measured:
[.]
There is nowhere on the earth, or in its atmosphere, where the energy
content can be considered to be in equilibrium. In daytime there is usually
a rise in energy, at night time, a fall. There are no circumstances where a
definite temperature of any part can be defined thermodynamically.
You can, of course, put a measurement instrument close to one part and
record the apparent transient temperature. If the measurement is continuous
you might even derive some sort of average temperature at that point. But
there is no way that one could carry out sufficient measurements,
distributed in a representative way, so that any sort of global average
temperature could be derived.
The climate scientists connected with the IPCC do, however, claim not only
that they have measured average global temperature, but that this has been
carried out with such accuracy that an increase of less than one degree
Celsius over 100 years could be confidently related to increased emissions
of greenhouse gases over the period, rather than to the errors of the
measurement.
James Hansen, the pioneer scientist who is credited with having launched
this belief in the influence of increasing greenhouse gases and continues to
promote it, has admitted publicly, on his website that the measurements are
completely unreliable:
When asked what is meant by Surface Air Temperature (SAT) Dr Hansen
explains:
"I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even
at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different
from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10ft or
50ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a
rain forest) the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from
the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion
might be to use the average temperature of the first 50ft of air either
above ground or on top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on
what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been adopted. I
cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50ft stack of
thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location."
When asked what is meant by daily surface air temperature, Dr Hansen
explains:
"Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the
temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every two
hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the
average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day? On some days the
various methods may lead to drastically different results."
When asked what the media report when they refer to surface air temperature,
Dr Hansen explains:
"The media report the reading of one particular thermometer of a nearby
weather station. This temperature may be very different from the true SAT
even at that location and has certainly nothing to do with the true regional
SAT. To measure the true regional SAT we would have to use many 50ft stacks
of thermometers distributed evenly over the whole region, an obvious
practical impossibility."
This rather devastating confession is not even all that can be said. In
daytime the surface is warmer than at night time, so that temperatures that
are experienced oscillate between two extremes and are hardly ever "average".
Any average is the least probable temperature. This is why meteorologists
usually give the daily maximum and minimum rather than the average, since
these are the temperatures commonly experienced.
The "temperature anomalies" which form the basis of the "mean annual global
temperature anomaly record" are obtained from weather station measurements,
only once a day, of the maximum and minimum temperatures of the previous 24
hours.
The number of stations changes over time, the time at which this measurement
is taken varies and the actual day is different in different time zones.
So-called "corrections" dependent on comparing many neighbouring stations
are impossible for most areas. Then the location and influence of
surrounding buildings alters over time and is the main reason for a long
term upwards bias.
The absence of any scientific justification for the existence of a reliable
average global surface temperature is just one of the many absurdities of
the assumptions which are made by the basic theory of computer models which
assumes that the energy of the earth can be regarded as in equilibrium, with
a constant temperature, and sunshine (day and night), and "balanced" with
energy coming in equalling that going out.
Since there is no part of the earth where this "balance" exists, it could
not possibly exist on average.
Dr Vincent Gray has been an Expert Reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change for eighteen years, that is to say, from the very
beginning. He lives in Wellington, New Zealand.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
nbzoo
V for Vendicar
"nbzoo" <nb...@r.com> wrote
> Vincent Gray
> Accurately recording the temperature of a body that is not in equilibrium
> can be complicated.
Vincent is very Gray - and I suppose that is one of the reasons he was
fired.
In any case, his argument boils down to a statement that the earth can't
be warming becasue there is no such thing as temperature.
And I suppose that is another reason why he was fired.
V for Vendicar
> can be complicated.
Vincent is very Gray - and I suppose that is one of the reasons he was