ReinyDays
Gold Member
I have no problem with inaccuracies with temperature data ... the lack of thermometers is a well established problem with the published "average global temperature" ... the important part is that these averages are calculated using the same method for each year ... so that these inaccuracies are common to all the data points ... I think the word "derived" in the OP is poorly chosen, we can derive the ideal temperature (4ºC for emissivity = 1), otherwise we're just estimating and include all the normal safeguards when using statistics ... especially with averages that carry a rather large standard deviation ...
We can calculate the average annual temperatures for just one location easy enough ... overlay the surface analysis and calculate the gradients for a regional area ... I think it's a mistake to believe these numbers are going to be any more accurate than instrumentation error (+/- 0.5ºC) ...
gfm7175 said "Earth's emissivity is unknown" -- I was wondering why I couldn't find this information, not that my Google-fu is any good ... that's a pretty serious hole in the carbon dioxide portion of AGW theory ... seriously, just how hard is it to shine light on a gas and measure the temperature rise? ...
We can calculate the average annual temperatures for just one location easy enough ... overlay the surface analysis and calculate the gradients for a regional area ... I think it's a mistake to believe these numbers are going to be any more accurate than instrumentation error (+/- 0.5ºC) ...
gfm7175 said "Earth's emissivity is unknown" -- I was wondering why I couldn't find this information, not that my Google-fu is any good ... that's a pretty serious hole in the carbon dioxide portion of AGW theory ... seriously, just how hard is it to shine light on a gas and measure the temperature rise? ...