Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

But is there even such a thing as a 'global average temperature'?

Are you asserting that

1) No such thing can be defined, even in principle (implying that it is meaningless to state that the sun is warmer than Pluto,) or that

2) You have in mind some better definition of GAT than those measures currently in use  (please share with us, if so..)

Pluto can be considered a frozen ball, although at times it does develop a thin sublimated atmosphere of nitrogen.  As a frozen ball it has a temperature.

As for the Sun, we can estimate temperatures at various locations and depths.  There certainly is measurable or computable thing that might be called an 'average temperature of the Sun.'

As for the Earth.

Is there an 'average temperature?'  I suspect there is at various depths in the crust and in the mantle.  But on the surface or slightly below the surface or in the air above the surface?  If so, which?

One might attempt the problem in terms of total heat content, but 'average temperature' does not pass muster.

[Vod]

The average temperature of Earth according to NASA figures is 15°C

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/#ixzz2q4TnkQmA

[u9y42]

The average temperature of Earth according to NASA figures is 15°C

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/#ixzz2q4TnkQmA

Yes, it's amazing the amount of nonsense Spendulus comes up with.

Anyway, just a minor correction about that site: Sedna's average temperature is about -261C, not the -280C shown.

[Spendulus]

The average temperature of Earth according to NASA figures is 15°C

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/#ixzz2q4TnkQmA

Yes, it's amazing the amount of nonsense Spendulus comes up with.

Anyway, just a minor correction about that site: Sedna's average temperature is about -261C, not the -280C shown.

The Earth is just plain not in thermodynamic equilibrium. 

Pluto is, with the slight exception I mentioned.

The Sun is a gas ball and it's dynamics are shown by the virial theory.

Sure there are some uses for temperature measurements, but attempting to build a number for a 'global average temperature' has no meaning.  You might as well average all the numbers in a telephone book.

[Schleicher]

One might attempt the problem in terms of total heat content, but 'average temperature' does not pass muster.

If you know the air temperature and the specific heat of the air then you get the internal energy of the air.
For the water it works the same way.

[Wilikon]

The average temperature of Earth according to NASA figures is 15°C

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/#ixzz2q4TnkQmA

15°C? So this is how we know global warming is man made because surely it was 14.889°C or something just before the industrial revolution?

[Snowfire]

The Earth is just plain not in thermodynamic equilibrium. 

Technically correct, because the earth has a hot core. But the geothermal flux (0.09 W/M2) is miniscule compared with mean solar irradiance (341.3 W/M2). So how is this relevant? As to whether Pluto's core is significantly warmer than its surface, I don't honestly know.

The Sun is a gas ball and it's dynamics are shown by the virial theory.

Virial theory?! There is a virial theorem--but it applies to quasi-spherical collections of freely co-orbiting bodies (e.g. elliptical galaxies or open clusters.) It says nothing about densely packed balls of matter with small mean free path.

Sure there are some uses for temperature measurements, but attempting to build a number for a 'global average temperature' has no meaning.  You might as well average all the numbers in a telephone book.

Poor example. Telephone numbers do not encode the value of any parameter, rather they are merely arbitrary routing addresses. So of course their average is meaningless. It does not follow that temperatures (which do encode the value of a parameter) cannot be meaningfully averaged.

All this aside, I would submit that one could refer to "temperature at the gas/liquid and gas/solid interfaces" or to "air temperature two meters above said interfaces" in a perfectly consistent manner. These are not the same numbers, to be sure, but they are far from uncorrelated, and they tend to show similar historical  trends.

[Spendulus]

One might attempt the problem in terms of total heat content, but 'average temperature' does not pass muster.

If you know the air temperature and the specific heat of the air then you get the internal energy of the air.
For the water it works the same way.

Actually, no.  You have the internal energy let's say at the cubic liter where the temperature was noted.  Or cubic meter, or something.  Take your pick.  But both the air and the water are moving around and are stratified layers.

The average of two points each measuring 20C is 20C, the average of one point 0C and another at 40C is 20C.  But those describe vastly different environments.

I think you need to know the not just the 'internal energy' for a non linear system, not in equilibrium, but the rate of change of that parameter.  Reason is, something that shows 1C higher T and higher heat content, but have a greater rate of energy outflow.

Well, we can discuss this quite a bit, but it would seem that you do get my point.

[Spendulus]

The Earth is just plain not in thermodynamic equilibrium.  

Technically correct, because the earth has a hot core. But the geothermal flux (0.09 W/M2) is miniscule compared with mean solar irradiance (341.3 W/M2). So how is this relevant? As to whether Pluto's core is significantly warmer than its surface, I don't honestly know.

The Sun is a gas ball and it's dynamics are shown by the virial theory.

Virial theory?! There is a virial theorem--but it applies to quasi-spherical collections of freely co-orbiting bodies (e.g. elliptical galaxies or open clusters.) It says nothing about densely packed balls of matter with small mean free path.

Sure there are some uses for temperature measurements, but attempting to build a number for a 'global average temperature' has no meaning.  You might as well average all the numbers in a telephone book.

Poor example. Telephone numbers do not encode the value of any parameter, rather they are merely arbitrary routing addresses. So of course their average is meaningless. It does not follow that temperatures (which do encode the value of a parameter) cannot be meaningfully averaged.

All this aside, I would submit that one could refer to "temperature at the gas/liquid and gas/solid interfaces" or to "air temperature two meters above said interfaces" in a perfectly consistent manner. These are not the same numbers, to be sure, but they are far from uncorrelated, and they tend to show similar historical  trends.

The virial does relate to the apparent size and temperature of the Sun, a ball of gas.  If it were hotter, it expands (of course dependent on plasma ion molecular weight).  Same actually occurs with the Earth, if the gas envelope got hotter it would expand.  Half the molecular energy into kinetic, half into potential, larger gas ball surface area for radiating heat outward, etc.

All this aside, I would submit that one could refer to "temperature at the gas/liquid and gas/solid interfaces" or to "air temperature two meters above said interfaces" in a perfectly consistent manner.

That would be true for a regional section in my opinion.  Say a hundred square mile piece of the Sahara.  A chunk of Antarctica.  A midwest section of farmland perhaps.

But mix up terrain, water mass, ice mass, and you have a mess.  Plus you never had the alleged "air temperature two meters above the surface".

But yeah, re your conclusion, the closest we could get to actually talking about a 'global temperature' would be polar orbiting satellite.  Reading microwave radiation from oxygen in the air.  Or go further out and just read albedo of the planetary disk.  Doing either for extended periods of time (decades) introduces instrument error issues.

[Spendulus]

The average temperature of Earth according to NASA figures is 15°C

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/#ixzz2q4TnkQmA

I don't need or care about what NASA said on the matter of 'an average temperature of Earth', we can discuss it from first principles.

Another comment, showing the shoddy workmanship in 'global temperature' does not 'prove or disprove AGW' but it does show shoddy workmanship in is passed off as good or settled science. 

Who is the denier?

[retrend]

Why would any scientist wishing to make money by falsifying evidence claim climate change exists?  I'm pretty confident they could earn a lot more espousing the opposite  

[Wilikon]

Why would any scientist wishing to make money by falsifying evidence claim climate change exists?  I'm pretty confident they could earn a lot more espousing the opposite  

Grant money. Getting published into scientific journals by people who think alike.

[retrend]

I obviously realise that is the theory. However, if I was qualified to write papers and had no moral problems with writing whatever would get me paid the most, I wouldn't be looking for grant money from governments to make me rich. 

I would be approaching those with the most money who stood to gain or lose the most.  i.e. Big industry. 

The idea that the vast majority of scientists, who don't tend to be particularly motivated by money, have been corrupted en masse by all the worlds governments as part of some decades long plan to introduce a new tax is beyond laughable. 

[Spendulus]

I obviously realise that is the theory. However, if I was qualified to write papers and had no moral problems with writing whatever would get me paid the most, I wouldn't be looking for grant money from governments to make me rich. 

I would be approaching those with the most money who stood to gain or lose the most.  i.e. Big industry. 

The idea that the vast majority of scientists, who don't tend to be particularly motivated by money, have been corrupted en masse by all the worlds governments as part of some decades long plan to introduce a new tax is beyond laughable. 

Fracking has thrown a huge monkey wrench into those plans - whatever they actually were - maybe sort of multiple layers of groupthink - mass hysteria than active conspiracy but there certainly have been and were some active conspiracies.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/scandal-bbcs-six-year-cover-up-of-secret-green-propaganda-training-for-top-executives/

[Wilikon]

The Democratic party has found a new consequence of climate change: prostitution. Rep. Barbara Lee and twelve other House Democrats issued a resolution stating that climate change can cause food and water shortages, which could lead impoverished women to turn to prostitution as a means of income:

“nsecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health,” it says.

More broadly, the resolution says climate change will hurt “marginalized” women, such as refugees, sexual minorities, adolescent girls, and women and girls with HIV. It also cites Hurricane Katrina as evidence of how climate change can affect women, noting that the storm displaced “over 83 percent of low-income, single mothers” in the region.


http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/107526-house-democrats-climate-change-turns-women-prostitutes/

[retrend]

This thread is an excellent example of why you lot got banned from reddit 

[zeta1]

This thread is an excellent example of why you lot got banned from reddit 

Where did free speech go then?

[Spendulus]

This thread is an excellent example of why you lot got banned from reddit  

Yeah, because some would like Barbara Lee to get away with her ridiculous insane comments without getting laughed at.  Laughing is only allowed at Oklahoma Senator Inhofe.

(in the eyes of warmies)

[Wilikon]

This thread is an excellent example of why you lot got banned from reddit 

Why? Too much free speech kills free speech?

[Spendulus]

I obviously realise that is the theory. However, if I was qualified to write papers and had no moral problems with writing whatever would get me paid the most, I wouldn't be looking for grant money from governments to make me rich.  

I would be approaching those with the most money who stood to gain or lose the most.  i.e. Big industry.  
...

Wouldn't the one who stood to gain the most be Big Government?  Each big industry would lose a fraction, Big Government would get the whole enchilada...

What could be a better scam for taxes than taxing the air?