Sentences with phrase «temperature is meaningless»

That means discussing a global average temperature is meaningless.

An average gobal temperature is meaningless.

Temperature is an intensive variable: a global temperature does not actually exist; and, an average global temperature is meaningless concept.

GLOBAL average temperature is meaningless in regard to the RADIANT envelope since a significant portion of the surface of the Earth is outside of the RADIANT envelope.

Of course several denizens on this board have denied CO2 is a greenhouse gas (by denying the greenhouse effect) and have denied that Earth has warmed (by claiming global temperature is meaningless concept) and denied that rising CO2 has a warming effect.

Similarly, a global average for temperatures is meaningless as we miss the nuances by bundling together all data.

Not exact matches

By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified

You will disagree, of course, but I still believe that it would be better tactics in the face of the meaningless but easily exploited decade of temperature flattening, to engage with the skeptics rather than to seek to dismiss out of hand with name - calling and the like.

By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified

Until you can provide one, one that explains why the known forcings over the same period of time had no affect on temperature, they are meaningless.

If global temperature has no agreed scientific meaning, it is meaningless, then measuring it seems pointless.

So this temperature analysis is absolutely meaningless and a waste of time in all respects bar one: it does suggest that there are cyclical influences and that alone is sufficient to cast serious doubt on the totally cycle - free vision of the IPCC.

They emphasise that it was the Chinese delegate who insisted on tinkering with the 1.5 degrees Celcius temperature target — crucial to the survival of small - island states — until it was largely meaningless.

How about going back to what is presented to you, and standing up to the challenge: Explain 350 years of no warming in the CET summer temperatures: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm or go back to meaningless waffle.

If future temperatures were to match your modeled values, you would call that a meaningless coincidence, right?

Matt: If future temperatures were to match your modeled values, you would call that a meaningless coincidence, right?

The «hottest year» claims had already been exposed as «statistically meaningless and a confirmation of the 18 year plus temperature «pause»,» Morano continued, citing numerous scientists who «balked» at the «warmest on record» allegation.

I recommend that the Trump Administration issue the Draft Report with an added section explaining how useless and biased the rest of the Draft Report is because it primarily relies on meaningless model results and unreliable surface temperature data.

The observation is valid without advert to a meaningless concept like «average global temperature.»

Ever notice that whenever temperatures are in stasis or dropping there is a rush to find errors and make adjustments or blabber on about «noise» in a meaningless manner.

The r2 statistic on all these temperature reconstructions is so low as to render them meaningless.

None of them is useful in predicting the future temperature trends, so in that respect the trends are meaningless.

Surely the fact that CO2 sublimes at a higher temperature than minus 80 °C demonstrates how meaningless such statements are.

And yet, proxy temperature trends are authoritatively published with ordinates showing resolutions of 0.2 C. Those plots are scientifically meaningless.

The fact this is seemingly not fully recognized — or here integrated — by Curry goes to the same reason Curry does not recognize why the so called «pause» is a fiction, why the «slowing» of the «rate» of increase in average ambient global land and ocean surface air temperatures over a shorter term period from the larger spike beyond the longer term mean of the 90s is also meaningless in terms of the basic issue, and why the average ambient increase in global air temperatures over such a short term is by far the least important empirical indicia of the issue.

The Moon's «mean temperature» I gave you is also a meaningless number and is used (by some) only because daily values aren't available across a wide area of the Moon's surface to determine a true number.

Anyway with El Niño fading away and possibly a new El Nina with other natural cooing factors coming in to play there is a good chance of another decade or more of «Pausing» or cooling in global temperatures which is itself a stupid concept as it cools and heats in different places of the planet dependent on the local climate conditions an average is meaningless — you really need to dream up some more dire alarmist nonsense to keep your show on the road.

These may be meaningless for an accurate «global» temperature determination, but they give some pretty good clues about the internal oscillations.

The Moon's blackbody temperature is -2.5 °C but the mean temperature I quoted from elsewhere -LRB--23 °C) is just a meaningless average of some published max and min values (I learned this fact after you pointed out this oddity).

No, he said, and that was why he had taken care to anonymize the data and send them to a statistician, who had confirmed the obvious: since the same technique, applied to the same data, could produce precisely opposite results depending upon a careful choice of the endpoints for the multiple trend - lines that the IPCC's bureaucrats had superimposed on the perfectly correct graph of 150 years of temperature changes that the scientists had submitted, the technique must be defective and any results obtained by its use must be meaningless.

For example, Peilke's argument that Ocean Heat Content is more meaningful and arguments that surface temperature is «meaningless» are not addressed directly.

The «fact» may be wrong (thermometer is broken) or meaningless — the radiant heat from the sun is what cooks you, not the air temperature.

The MITS reasons that one molecule moving at ten times the average speed of air molecules at sea level must be much hotter than average, but this only shows a lack of appreciation for how something like temperature becomes meaningless without an abstraction on which to base it.

Therefore, the CO2 correlation with alleged temperature rises is meaningless.

Those numbers are meaningless as the average temperature of the surface of the Moon is between 80 °C on the lit face and -200 °C on the dark face and averaged over a lunar day it's 98 K at the poles and 206 K at the equator.

The resolution of climate questions has a minimum, in the case of surface temperature somewhere below 17 years but certainly over 8.5 years, below which any shorter span is truly meaningless on its own.

John Philips (13:43:35) «Trends» have become virtually meaningless lately, since the word has been so variably used, but try this: Eyeball the temperature curve as correlated to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and you will see an excellent relationship with the cyclic cooling and warming phase of the PDO overlaid on a gradual warming trend emerging from the Little Ice Age.

Combining land surface temperatures and sea surface temperatures is a particularly meaningless metric, because SSTs measure the rate at which heat is transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere.

Averaging temperature is kind of meaningless.

To combine all these half - assed measurements into a thermodynamically meaningless «average» temperature of the globe is nothing short of anti-science.

They appear to be meaningless they don't appear to be C of F and the numbers descend which makes no sense, if the graphs are meant to represent ascending temperatures.

Average temperature of the planet is a completely meaningless number.

An illustration of how meaningless the record and the results are is given by the fact that in many years the difference in global annual average temperature is at least half the 0.7 °C figure.

The 2 % is a meaningless number, because two thirds of the globe is covered by oceans, of which there weren't temperature records (of any meaning) in 1934.

Perhaps at last we can really start to get back to science - based ecology ie: forget about meaningless global temperature trends which are both completely beyond our scope to quantify whist at the same time being utterly useless to us in terms of our local micro-environments....

Averaging atmospheric temperature is mathematically easy and completely meaningless in physics from the perspective of assessing whether «green house gases» cause the retention of energy in the atmosphere.

Since GHG forcing is in terms of energy and guestimated as a temperature impact, you can push the limits of the zeroth law and show some super impressive temperature response that is just about meaningless in terms of «global» impacts.

By showing that (a) there are no c ommon physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

In other words, it's unphysical to claim that the temperatures just walk around randomly within very wide (and thus essentially meaningless) bounds: It goes against conservation of energy.

However, in the same manner that Chris Essex and Ross wrote that global average temperature is physically meaningless, so is a monthly average temperature, T. It's a statistic, not a physical quantity.