AGW – How meaningful is “Global Average Temperature”?

Global warming

Image via Wikipedia

In Conclusion

There is just so much wrong with the idea that you can average temperatures from different places. Yet it makes up the core of the Global Warming mindset, and argument. It doesn’t matter if you make temperatures into anomalies or not. They simply must be adjusted for things like enthalpy change to have meaning relative to heat flow, and they are not. It is NOT sufficient to simply assume the quantity of water, and the impact of enthalpy, does not change. That it can be assumed static. We know it isn’t. Total precipitation varies dramatically from year to year and decade to decade. Fog, snow, melt dates, dew and irrigation levels too. We know that assumption is wrong; yet rests at the heart of a “Global AVERAGE Temperature”.

A strange introduction to a post – yes? But I think it appropriate.

An internet friend E.M.Smith has a blog “Musings from the Chiefio”. He is a whizz with share trading ideas, life-in-general topics and a real specialist in the global temperature arena. (Well this GT arena is a bit of a circus). He offers an enormous amount of convincing data and reasoning which raises serious doubt as to the accuracies of the official published temperature figures used to “prove” the planet is warming, or at least the extent there-of..

Today he posts “Give Us This Day Our Daily Enthalpy”. (He is also a bit of a wit!)

I only needed to publish his conclusion to make the point meaningful to this blog.

However, the whole article is informative and instructive.  His AGW/Temperature archives are extensive and educational.

About Ken McMurtrie

Retired Electronics Engineer, most recently installing and maintaining medical X-Ray equipment. A mature age "student" of Life and Nature, an advocate of Truth, Justice and Humanity, promoting awareness of the injustices in the world.
This entry was posted in climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Nature and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to AGW – How meaningful is “Global Average Temperature”?

  1. Dear Prof. Chomsky,

    I remember enjoying a summer afternoon with family and friends, sitting under a large pine tree for shade. This particular tree could be beyond the century mark, judging from its size and character. The conversation occasionally would switch for family events to the incredibly hot month we are having, as expected when the temperature is constantly above one hundred degrees. “July was the hottest month in Texas’ recorded history” said a family friend. “And nobody believes in climate change” I replied, trying to read the popular opinion of the backyard.

    The poll results were a bit disturbing, it seems a majority of the populous shading themselves from the afternoon sun, believe that man-made climate change is a hoax. One doubter argued, “The average temperature of the globe is higher than it is today.”


    • Noam says:
      “There is a very small group of serious scientists who are skeptical about global warming. Major sectors of business have been entirely open about the fact that they are running propaganda campaigns to convince the public that it is a hoax.
      The problem is institutional, not individual. As for the public, many are genuinely confused. That is not surprising when the media present a “debate” between two sides — virtually all scientists versus a scattering of skeptics — while incidentally ignoring almost entirely a much more serious array of skeptics within the scientific world, namely those who believe that the general scientific consensus is much too optimistic. There are doubtless other reasons too. Taking the problem as seriously as we should leads to difficult choices and actions. It is easier to transfer the problems somewhere else, in this case to the world’s poor and to our grandchildren.” – Noam Chomsky

      This post is about the accuracy or otherwise of computing a meaningful Global Average Temperature. Why are we receiving a comment about consensus? Surely we can discuss our topic without such a diversion. If there is a published claim of consensus on either the methods of establishing GAT, or of its accuracy, I would like to see it.
      But to follow your thread of consensus, let me say that all claims of AGW consensus are clearly suspect. I strongly argue against such claims.

      Some extracts from relevant articles: (With help from WUWT).

      From Jean goodwin,
      “The emphasis on consensus also became codified in the IPCC’s internal procedures, as they became increasingly settled after the first (and quite rushed) assessment process. As early as 1991, a rule was adopted stating that “in taking decisions, drawing conclusions, and adopting reports, the IPCC Plenary and Working Groups shall use all best endeavours to reach consensus” (quoted in Skodvin 115; the current, slightly revised version, can be found in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).”

      “It was a sight to behold. There were the Americans, in Sweden last week for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, repeating their government’s wellworn homilies about global warming: how uncertain all this science is, how expensive it would be to do anything, how silly to get excited until we are absolutely sure the world is in peril.
      And who stood up to defy them? None other than John Houghton, head of Britain’s Meteorological Office, and a man not known for his radical views. He simply repeated what the IPCC scientists had “calculated with certainty”: that Earth will get warmer, that there will be largely incalcuable but probably dire results if we do not curb greenhouse gases, and that the sooner governments deal
      with this, the better. Becaue the scientists insisted that they do know a bit about what is happening to the planet, the American emphasis on uncertainty will not now be part of the IPCC’s report to the World Cllimate Conference in November (“A Climate of Reason”).”

      “The CO2 issue is so diverse in its intellectual components that no individual may be considered an expert on the entire problem. For this reason, as noted above, the CDAC prepared or commissioned separately authored and separately peerreviewed papers in each area, with no attempt to force unanimity of style or of
      views. For the same reason, the Committee members felt themselves incapable of judging and endorsing as a group the details of each paper’s analysis and findings.
      Thus, each paper should be viewed primarily as the product of its individual author or authors, having had the review and comment of the Committee members and other reviewers but not enjoying the unanimity of conclusions possible in a more homogeneous and less controversial topic.”

      From –
      “Did you know that reports by the UN’s climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC are the basis of the Rudd-Gillard and Greens climate policies?
      “4,000 scientists did not claim human production of CO2 caused global warming. Only 5 IPCC reviewers endorsed its core claim – and there’s doubt they were even scientists;”
      “For its 1995 report, UN IPCC scientists advised five times there was no evidence of humans causing warming. Yet IPCC politicians’ reported to national governments and media: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”;”
      “UN IPCC data on the air’s carbon dioxide (CO2) levels show carbon dioxide is a consequence of temperature, not a cause. This is true for every period in Earth’s history and over every duration;”
      “The 2007 report’s sole chapter claiming warming and attributing it to humans contains no specific scientifically measured real-world evidence (AR4, chapter 9) for its claim. It relies on computer models programmed to predict warming. Yet cooling has occurred; ”
      “The UN IPCC chairman repeatedly publicly claims the IPCC uses 100% scientifically peer-reviewed literature. Yet its 2007 report cites and relies on 5,587 references not peer-reviewed – including hikers’ stories, newspaper articles and political activists’ campaign material; ”
      “UN IPCC figures reveal scientific peer-review is corrupted, often bypassed and even prevented. In the real world these reports would be rejected. In business, the writers would be prosecuted; ”
      “UN IPCC guidelines force scientists to change their report to be consistent with the political Summary for Policy Makers released months earlier; ”
      “The UN IPCC does no scientific research and is not accountable to any national governments.”
      A summary of UN IPCC and Australian corruption of climate science is available here. (

      The AGW organizations may have the benefit of influence with the public and governments, but they lack the consensus they claim, and they lack the science they claim. They stifle opposition is if they are frightened of it, which is probably the reason. Why not debate the science out in the open?

      Addendum 27th Sept 11
      Professor Chomsky, I am sorry for the tone of my comments. I realize now that greater respect is due, having become aware of your standing. I am happy enough to stick to the substance but owe you an apology for my uncalled-for arrogance . Ken.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s