Indeed, it is quite likely that neither of them are
accurate temperature estimates!
Not exact matches
While a GCM portrayal of
temperature would not be
accurate to a given day, these models give fairly good
estimates for long - term average
temperatures, such as 30 - year periods, which closely match observed data.
However, and this is important, because of the biases and the difficulty in interpolating, the
estimates of the global mean absolute
temperature are not as
accurate as the year to year changes.
I would also like to say that your claim that «the
estimates of the global mean absolute
temperature are not as
accurate as the year to year changes» is at the very least counterintuitive.
Just because you don't understand how climate scientists and other fields of science use proxy information to get
accurate estimates of past
temperatures doesn't mean it is not possible for them to do so.
Theoretician - climatologist on
estimating cost of CO2 mitigation calculation: We can't make a very
accurate estimate of the cost of mitigating CO2 and the resulting related
temperature reduction because it's too hard.
The reality is that
accurate global
temperature estimates are some fantasy produced by some fevered wannabe hack scientist.
Even if you get a reasonable
temperature estimate you must have an
accurate date.
If people used the
accurate «
estimated» language, it would be obvious to everyone that very small
temperature differences really could not be accurately compared to each other.
The smaller the grid boxes, the better the average
temperature of the box will reflect the actual
temperature at any given point, leading to a more
accurate estimate global
temperature when you add them all together.
Having said that, I am compelled to state that, in my opinion, the use of surface
temperatures alone are probably the least
accurate way to describe / forecast weather or climate (extended weather), and adding
estimated CO2 just muddies the picture.
I used the word «consistent» because observational data are not yet
accurate enough to prove the existence of an imbalance (e.g. 0.9 W / m ^ 2) capable of significant
temperature effect but too small to be precisely
estimated as the exact difference between two large numbers in the range of 239 W / m ^ 2.
The two alternative time periods for this are pertinent, but equally pertinent is the more
accurate «earth's average surface
temperature is
estimated to have risen...».
I suspect that 50 US stations would NOT give a very
accurate ABSOLUTE
estimate for the mean
temperature, but WOULD be adequate for indicating CHANGES in
temperature.
Since then, a growing number of surface
temperature measurement stations worldwide, coupled with improved methods for correcting for biases induced through urban heat island effects and other station siting and operational issues, have allowed for the development of
accurate global
temperature estimates.
It has been shown, by sampling globally complete data with realistic temporal and spatial variability, that this extrapolation procedure yields a more
accurate estimate of annual global
temperature than global integration methods that restrict the area to regions very close to observed points.
I believe this gives an
accurate estimate of surface
temperature trends which most closely resembles the normal GISS LOTI.
For ecample Working out historic sea surface
temperatures using one record in a grid cell in a year and spreading that to other grid cells Does not seem to me to be an
accurate way of
estimating the wider
temperature.
I'd be happy to see either more
accurate estimates or experimental data for the typical
temperatures of cloud bases.
For an
accurate reconstruction, one would want to use this red line and the
estimate for a
temperature at the proxy value A is indicated by TA * in the figure.
The meat of the matter is why the different adjustment procedures don't agree and if there is any way to get
accurate enough
temperature estimates to make useful
estimates of the accumulated energy.