The Science of Global Warming : Explained

[sayak83]

That's lots of numbers and words but somehow you missed my query of 13 words:

what temps are we measuring that show what mass is heating how much?​

If you told me a temperature I missed it. What mass are you taking a temp of --the earth, the biosphere? the atmosphere? What is the previous temp? We need to know if the rise is unprecedented.

Tossing out lots of numbers quotes links and citations doesn't cut it. I've talked to astrologers that say astrology is in fact scientific because they use numbers and measurements. Numbers and measurements are not enough.

Can u see my problem here?

I simply do not understand your question. Are you asking how much temperature rise there has been from 1900 onwards globally? Are you asking how we measured this temperature rise?You need to explain more clearly what exactly you are asking.

 

[exchemist]

OK, so you're saying we're in some kind of crisis, I ask what the crisis is, you say that everyone already knows about it and I'm supposed to do the research. When I've researched it I find a controversy. When I present the controversy I hear (from all sides) "there is no controversy because we're right and they're wrong".

Fine. I'd still like to know what temp measurements show what mass is heating up how much.It has to do w/ the science that we got in middle school. A calorie is the amount of heat that raises one gram of water one degree C. We're taking the temps (before and after) of a mass (one gram of water) and that tells u how much heat's gone in. Basic.

None of the AGW advocates I've talked to are willing to go that far, the convo usually ends long before w/ my being a bad guy because I ask too many questions. My thinking is that middle school science is really not all that deep.

This is not a measurement of specific heat capacity, so mass does not enter into it.

All you need to see is the long term trend lines for global temperature and for CO2 content in the atmosphere. If you haven't seen these you have not been paying attention. @sayak83 has provided plenty of information about it and has indicated willingness to provide more, if you can be clear about what it is you want.

I have to say, though, that this looks very much like a person who is determined to remain as ignorant as possible, by asking for nonsensical things. I've seen exactly the same psychology at work with creationists.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I simply do not understand your question. Are you asking how much temperature rise there has been from 1900 onwards globally? Are you asking how we measured this temperature rise?You need to explain more clearly what exactly you are asking.

Maybe the problem is that I've misunderstood what you're saying. Are you saying that the earth has been heating up a few degrees because of a greenhouse effect over the past say, 50 or 100 years? It's possible that I'm asking you about ideas that you've never espoused.

Then again, if you're not saying anything then we can forget this whole nonsense and go to other threads. I'll thank you for your time though.

 

[Pete in Panama]

This is not a measurement of specific heat capacity, so mass does not enter into it.

All you need to see is the long term trend lines for global temperature and for CO2 content in the atmosphere. If you haven't seen these you have not been paying attention. @sayak83 has provided plenty of information about it and has indicated willingness to provide more, if you can be clear about what it is you want.

I have to say, though, that this looks very much like a person who is determined to remain as ignorant as possible, by asking for nonsensical things. I've seen exactly the same psychology at work with creationists.

Ah, if we're throwing out specific heat capacity then we're not talking about heat retained by a greenhouse effect, CO2, SUV's or any of that stuff.

Sounds good to me.

 

[sayak83]

Maybe the problem is that I've misunderstood what you're saying. Are you saying that the earth has been heating up a few degrees because of a greenhouse effect over the past say, 50 or 100 years? It's possible that I'm asking you about ideas that you've never espoused.

Then again, if you're not saying anything then we can forget this whole nonsense and go to other threads. I'll thank you for your time though.

Yes. Earth has heated up by about 1.3 C overall over the last 100 years due to human caused greenhouse effect.
Now what is your question?

 

[Pete in Panama]

Yes. Earth has heated up by about 1.3 C overall over the last 100 years due to human caused greenhouse effect.
Now what is your question?

So you're saying that the mass we're talking about is the 5.97219 × 10 ^24kilograms. My thinking is that you know of this 1.3C not from two separate temperature measurements but from some other publication that gave you the increase. Please confirm that there are no specific temperature measurements w/ a 1.3C difference, and that we're talking about the mass of the earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you're saying that the mass we're talking about is the 5.97219 × 10 ^24kilograms. My thinking is that you know of this 1.3C not from two separate temperature measurements but from some other publication that gave you the increase. Please confirm that there are no specific temperature measurements w/ a 1.3C difference, and that we're talking about the mass of the earth.

No, we are not talking about the mass of the Earth, It appears that English is not your first language. You can think of the raise as being of atmospheric temperatures.

 

[sayak83]

So you're saying that the mass we're talking about is the 5.97219 × 10 ^24kilograms. My thinking is that you know of this 1.3C not from two separate temperature measurements but from some other publication that gave you the increase. Please confirm that there are no specific temperature measurements w/ a 1.3C difference, and that we're talking about the mass of the earth.

This global temperature rise is the average temperature rise of the lower troposphere (ie lower atmosphere) and upper 200 m layer of ocean only. The weight is therefore around 10^17 kg, not 10^24 kg.

So just to be clear. It's not the entire earth. It's the combined temperature rise of bottom 2 km of atmosphere and the top 200 m of the oceans. The global temperature rise value is the average of this.

 

[Pete in Panama]

This global temperature rise is the average temperature rise of the lower troposphere (ie lower atmosphere) and upper 200 m layer of ocean only. The weight is therefore around 10^17 kg, not 10^24 kg.

So just to be clear. It's not the entire earth. It's the combined temperature rise of bottom 2 km of atmosphere and the top 200 m of the oceans. The global temperature rise value is the average of this.

OK, so changing from 6x10^24 to around 10^17 kg is a big improvement.

It would also be a big help to me if u could please show me how this is a mainstream belief. Where did u get this? The reason I ask is that I dread looking into it only to have someone else change it again to some other boundary that better supports the AGW doctrine. It's hard to grasp and understand a moving target.

Where have you heard the 200 meter depth w/ no temp change in the earth's solids?

 

[sayak83]

OK, so changing from 6x10^24 to around 10^17 kg is a big improvement.

It would also be a big help to me if u could please show me how this is a mainstream belief. Where did u get this? The reason I ask is that I dread looking into it only to have someone else change it again to some other boundary that better supports the AGW doctrine. It's hard to grasp and understand a moving target.

Where have you heard the 200 meter depth w/ no temp change in the earth's solids?

Basic info documents from NASA and NOAA who maintains the Global Surface Temperature records.
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)
Updated Temperature Data Give a Sharper View of Climate Trends - Eos
Here is a simplified graphic of how it works
How to Measure Global Average Temperature in Five Easy Steps | Center for Science Education
The temperature records used in these means are all in the ocean surface (not more that 200 m deep) and near land surface (2m for most land stations to max 500-1000 m for weather and satellite collected data) as has been noted in these websites and associated publications.

I hope NASA and NOAA are mainstream enough?

 

[Pete in Panama]

Basic info documents from NASA and NOAA who maintains the Global Surface Temperature records.
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)
Updated Temperature Data Give a Sharper View of Climate Trends - Eos
Here is a simplified graphic of how it works
How to Measure Global Average Temperature in Five Easy Steps | Center for Science Education
The temperature records used in these means are all in the ocean surface (not more that 200 m deep) and near land surface (2m for most land stations to max 500-1000 m for weather and satellite collected data) as has been noted in these websites and associated publications.

I hope NASA and NOAA are mainstream enough?

Thanks so much for your work. What I'm looking for is as I mentioned above when I asked...

...what temps are we measuring that show what mass is heating how much?...

--and you stated that--

Yes. Earth has heated up by about 1.3 C overall over the last 100 years due to human caused greenhouse effect.
Now what is your question?

--clarifying with--

...the lower troposphere (ie lower atmosphere) and upper 200 m layer of ocean only. The weight is therefore around 10^17 kg...

--but we're running into a problem w/ our temperature measurements.

The links you provided don't show temperature measurements but instead they present "anomalies". In every other field of endeavor the two are not the same --if I went to the doctor and said my fever was a +1.7C anomaly, he'd insist on an actual temperature. If I were building a furnace to melt an alloy and asked what the melting point was, I'd insist on a melting temperature and not a melting anomaly. Even in with climate research, when I search "arctic climate average temperatures" I get: "What is the average temperature in the Arctic? In general, the monthly average temperature in the Arctic Circle is below 10° C (50 ° F) throughout the year, even in the summer."

Only in AGW we get anomalies. NASA had a page that "explained" why they did not give "absolute temperatures" (aka "temperatures") and it boiled down to the fact that they found it too difficult to measure temperatures and anomalies were easier.

That doesn't help us w/ having temperature measurements now and 100 years ago of the top 200 meters of the earth's oceans.

There are all kinds of ways of measuring temperature. The length of the mercury in a standard thermometer is the normal proxy for most samples, but for a proxy of the ocean 200meters down we'd need a believable correlation for annual temperatures. It's possible that we got mid-ocean buoy records for the past say, 20 years, maybe if we correlated that w/ satellite readings going back another few decades then we could come up w/ further proxies.

You've been very patient w/ me and I've got to apologize in advance for being so hard to get along with. At the same time I'd hope u could see why I'm looking for what I mentioned above Somehow it seems kind of unlikely that we could gather believable data for 1925 mid ocean temperatures, if u can then great! If I'm asking for too much then I'd at least hope w/ can part friends.

 

[sayak83]

Thanks so much for your work. What I'm looking for is as I mentioned above when I asked...--and you stated that----clarifying with----but we're running into a problem w/ our temperature measurements.

The links you provided don't show temperature measurements but instead they present "anomalies". In every other field of endeavor the two are not the same --if I went to the doctor and said my fever was a +1.7C anomaly, he'd insist on an actual temperature. If I were building a furnace to melt an alloy and asked what the melting point was, I'd insist on a melting temperature and not a melting anomaly. Even in with climate research, when I search "arctic climate average temperatures" I get: "What is the average temperature in the Arctic? In general, the monthly average temperature in the Arctic Circle is below 10° C (50 ° F) throughout the year, even in the summer."

Only in AGW we get anomalies. NASA had a page that "explained" why they did not give "absolute temperatures" (aka "temperatures") and it boiled down to the fact that they found it too difficult to measure temperatures and anomalies were easier.

That doesn't help us w/ having temperature measurements now and 100 years ago of the top 200 meters of the earth's oceans.

There are all kinds of ways of measuring temperature. The length of the mercury in a standard thermometer is the normal proxy for most samples, but for a proxy of the ocean 200meters down we'd need a believable correlation for annual temperatures. It's possible that we got mid-ocean buoy records for the past say, 20 years, maybe if we correlated that w/ satellite readings going back another few decades then we could come up w/ further proxies.

You've been very patient w/ me and I've got to apologize in advance for being so hard to get along with. At the same time I'd hope u could see why I'm looking for what I mentioned above Somehow it seems kind of unlikely that we could gather believable data for 1925 mid ocean temperatures, if u can then great! If I'm asking for too much then I'd at least hope w/ can part friends.

Your question has multiple parts. One part is how to confirm older ocean temperature data is reliable. Older method used buckets while newer method uses buoys. The simple way is to measure the same location using both methods and see the systematic errors and correct for them in the older measurement data. This is always done. Here are more details
Planet Postcard: A Bucket Full of Data

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2017-01-steady-oceans-years.amp

Methods and ways to correct biases between instruments is thoroughly discussed and researched in any experimental science field and improvements are constantly made. However the main signal of warming temperature has only been confirmed more and more with these improvements.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Your question has multiple parts. One part is how to confirm older ocean temperature data is reliable. Older method used buckets while newer method uses buoys. The simple way is to measure the same location using both methods and see the systematic errors and correct for them in the older measurement data. This is always done. Here are more details
Planet Postcard: A Bucket Full of Data

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2017-01-steady-oceans-years.amp

Methods and ways to correct biases between instruments is thoroughly discussed and researched in any experimental science field and improvements are constantly made. However the main signal of warming temperature has only been confirmed more and more with these improvements.

You can tell me what I missed but the two things I got from your links were that we haven't seen here accurate temp. info on the top 200m of oceans and there probably wasn't data for 100 years ago.

I'm not saying that I'm right and your wrong. I'm saying we don't know yet. My experience of looking for the past 30 years has led me to say that the data probably does not exist, tho proving a negative isn't easy.

 

[wellwisher]

I have suggested, for years, that we need to have smaller teams of scientists run the data collection, the same as they did from 1880, onward, to make sure our new technology and new approaches are normalized. We can then be sure, there is so much temperature rise, and that we are not generating our own data set, that appears to be higher than normalization.

A grouping of satellites can scan the entire surface area of the earth to get a daily average surface temperature. anywhere. In 1880, they could not do this. They may have had a few thousand points. So how do we normalize the data, so we can draw a 125 year curve?

Can anyone see a problem? If manmade climate change was being purposely exaggerated, two vastly different methods of data collection, would be a good way to fudge data, in the open. The satellite data will be treated professionally, but have different data groups, than what they are comparing to.

They are not willing to invest 1% of the budget, into retro science techniques for data collection, since it may not add up, and could spoil the gravy train. The idea of using buckets of ocean water from a boat on any given day, versus digital buoys that can sit in one place for years, may not normalize. Until such normalization is done, be skeptical, since there is too much money at stake, for any consensus to risk not only the gravy train suddenly stopping, but their prestige tarnished. It may be better, avoiding. Physic thought the universe was done deal and now some simple data have destroyed the consensus; galaxies only a few hundred million year after BB.

 

[sayak83]

You can tell me what I missed but the two things I got from your links were that we haven't seen here accurate temp. info on the top 200m of oceans and there probably wasn't data for 100 years ago.

I'm not saying that I'm right and your wrong. I'm saying we don't know yet. My experience of looking for the past 30 years has led me to say that the data probably does not exist, tho proving a negative isn't easy.

Usually only surface temperatures are measured and included in the global surface average. In only some cases the temperature includes temperatures from deeper waters, and in those cases, that is because the ocean temperature does not change with depth in these places.

You understand that GST measures the global surface temperature, that is the temperature on the ocean and land surface throughout the world. Closer to the surface the better.

In general ocean temperature remains constant with depth for 100 m on average with a range varying from 40 m - 300 m depending on place.

 

[sayak83]

I have suggested, for years, that we need to have smaller teams of scientists run the data collection, the same as they did from 1880, onward, to make sure our new technology and new approaches are normalized. We can then be sure, there is so much temperature rise, and that we are not generating our own data set, that appears to be higher than normalization.

A grouping of satellites can scan the entire surface area of the earth to get a daily average surface temperature. anywhere. In 1880, they could not do this. They may have had a few thousand points. So how do we normalize the data, so we can draw a 125 year curve?

Can anyone see a problem? If manmade climate change was being purposely exaggerated, two vastly different methods of data collection, would be a good way to fudge data, in the open. The satellite data will be treated professionally, but have different data groups, than what they are comparing to.

They are not willing to invest 1% of the budget, into retro science techniques for data collection, since it may not add up, and could spoil the gravy train. The idea of using buckets of ocean water from a boat on any given day, versus digital buoys that can sit in one place for years, may not normalize. Until such normalization is done, be skeptical, since there is too much money at stake, for any consensus to risk not only the gravy train suddenly stopping, but their prestige tarnished. It may be better, avoiding. Physic thought the universe was done deal and now some simple data have destroyed the consensus; galaxies only a few hundred million year after BB.

This is absurd. Normalisation is routinely done. I can quote a 100 papers where this normalisation has been done. Who told you it has not been done?

 

[sayak83]

Thanks so much for your work. What I'm looking for is as I mentioned above when I asked...--and you stated that----clarifying with----but we're running into a problem w/ our temperature measurements.

The links you provided don't show temperature measurements but instead they present "anomalies". In every other field of endeavor the two are not the same --if I went to the doctor and said my fever was a +1.7C anomaly, he'd insist on an actual temperature. If I were building a furnace to melt an alloy and asked what the melting point was, I'd insist on a melting temperature and not a melting anomaly. Even in with climate research, when I search "arctic climate average temperatures" I get: "What is the average temperature in the Arctic? In general, the monthly average temperature in the Arctic Circle is below 10° C (50 ° F) throughout the year, even in the summer."

Only in AGW we get anomalies. NASA had a page that "explained" why they did not give "absolute temperatures" (aka "temperatures") and it boiled down to the fact that they found it too difficult to measure temperatures and anomalies were easier.

That doesn't help us w/ having temperature measurements now and 100 years ago of the top 200 meters of the earth's oceans.

There are all kinds of ways of measuring temperature. The length of the mercury in a standard thermometer is the normal proxy for most samples, but for a proxy of the ocean 200meters down we'd need a believable correlation for annual temperatures. It's possible that we got mid-ocean buoy records for the past say, 20 years, maybe if we correlated that w/ satellite readings going back another few decades then we could come up w/ further proxies.

You've been very patient w/ me and I've got to apologize in advance for being so hard to get along with. At the same time I'd hope u could see why I'm looking for what I mentioned above Somehow it seems kind of unlikely that we could gather believable data for 1925 mid ocean temperatures, if u can then great! If I'm asking for too much then I'd at least hope w/ can part friends.

Your second question was why use temperature deviations rather than actual temperature. This because the temperature of various locations vary widely. Arctic temperature may be -40C while temperature in the Sahara maybe +50C. So, unlike your body or melting temperature of iron, the world does not have a spatially uniform temperature value and hence the average is not very informative or useful. Instead the deviations from the local average temperature (whatever it is) is useful and is a good measure of how far the climate is changing there from previous years or decades. That is the reason anomalies are used.
However we do know the 20th century average surface temperature which was 13.9 C. It includes the warming that happened after 1950 s of course so the preindustrial average (pre 1850) is about 13.5 C appx. The value is given in link below
Climate Change: Global Temperature

 

[Pete in Panama]

Usually only surface temperatures are measured and included in the global surface average. In only some cases the temperature includes temperatures from deeper waters, and in those cases, that is because the ocean temperature does not change with depth in these places.

You understand that GST measures the global surface temperature, that is the temperature on the ocean and land surface throughout the world. Closer to the surface the better.

In general ocean temperature remains constant with depth for 100 m on average with a range varying from 40 m - 300 m depending on place.

A lot of other sources agree w/ the first 100m and beyond that there are a lot of fluctuations found --here's one source (from NOAA? via wikipedia):
View attachment 72145
--so if we're talking about the average temperature we'll need a lot more than just surface temps.

Your second question was why use temperature deviations rather than actual temperature. This because the temperature of various locations vary widely. Arctic temperature may be -40C while temperature in the Sahara maybe +50C. So, unlike your body or melting temperature of iron, the world does not have a spatially uniform temperature value and hence the average is not very informative or useful. Instead the deviations from the local average temperature (whatever it is) is useful and is a good measure of how far the climate is changing there from previous years or decades. That is the reason anomalies are used.
However we do know the 20th century average surface temperature which was 13.9 C. It includes the warming that happened after 1950 s of course so the preindustrial average (pre 1850) is about 13.5 C appx. The value is given in link below
Climate Change: Global Temperature

So we agree that the difficulty w/ determining temperatures is like you said "temperature of various locations vary widely". Temperatures on the surface of the sun can vary by many thousands of degrees but the over all average is known to four significant figures because the amount of total heat given off gives us an average number The same could be (and most probably has been) done for the earth's total heat flow but from what I can tell the subject is too controversial.

My question at the beginning was "...what temps are we measuring that show what mass is heating how much?..." and you responded w/ "Earth has heated up by about 1.3 C overall over the last 100 years due to human caused greenhouse effect" --and later "the earth" was changed to the top 600 meters of ocean. To my knowledge you have not shown me temperature measurements of this mass w/ an accuracy that could justify a resultant change to a tenth of a degree.

My guess is that such required readings are neither there nor even possible. The temp change may have happened but we don't have the scientific basis for such a conclusion.

 

[sayak83]

A lot of other sources agree w/ the first 100m and beyond that there are a lot of fluctuations found --here's one source (from NOAA? via wikipedia):
View attachment 72145
--so if we're talking about the average temperature we'll need a lot more than just surface temps.
So we agree that the difficulty w/ determining temperatures is like you said "temperature of various locations vary widely". Temperatures on the surface of the sun can vary by many thousands of degrees but the over all average is known to four significant figures because the amount of total heat given off gives us an average number The same could be (and most probably has been) done for the earth's total heat flow but from what I can tell the subject is too controversial.

My question at the beginning was "...what temps are we measuring that show what mass is heating how much?..." and you responded w/ "Earth has heated up by about 1.3 C overall over the last 100 years due to human caused greenhouse effect" --and later "the earth" was changed to the top 600 meters of ocean. To my knowledge you have not shown me temperature measurements of this mass w/ an accuracy that could justify a resultant change to a tenth of a degree.

My guess is that such required readings are neither there nor even possible. The temp change may have happened but we don't have the scientific basis for such a conclusion.

I will answer your question step by step.
First. Do you accept that reliable direct temperature records for the ocean surface and land surface exists since 1880 onwards? If yes then fine. If no, then why not?

 

[Pete in Panama]

I will answer your question step by step.
First. Do you accept that reliable direct temperature records for the ocean surface and land surface exists since 1880 onwards? If yes then fine. If no, then why not?

Thanks for coming back to me, you pose an excellent and key question. My short answer is that I avoid indulging in my beliefs when I am investigating a scientific question --they get in the way.

The longer answer is that maybe we have good temp measurements and once we see them together then we can move from there. I've failed to find them myself but that proves nothing accept that I need help, so I'm here. Please, let's get out the sufficiently precise temperature readings --I thought we were going back the 100 years you mentioned earlier-- then we'd be on our way. My thinking is that next we could come up w/ temperature measurements going back a few hundred thousand years (NOAA has a terrific paleoclimate data website). Maybe we could even some how show how they correlate to ocean temperatures.

We've seen a lot of clowns on these threads w/ an agenda, worse yet they drag on w/ their stupid games --I just had to "ignore" a clown here. I like the idea of working w/ someone else w/ different views to keep me honest, and to go (as you said "step by step". Let's find the damn temp measurements for the top 600m of ocean, I'm sure there out there someplace-- then see how they match w/ other proxies. After we find our significant rise then we can go on to see if the increase has precedent and what happened before.

Sound good to you?