Fake News on Global Temperature

Let me start by stating roundly that there is no such entity as a Global Temperature, so the idea that man can control a temperature that does not even exist is, simply put, Gibberish!

I know that this flies in the face of many scientists belonging to the Intercontinental Panel on Climate Change, who make great warnings that we must change our ways, and somehow restrict the rise of temperature to less that 2ºC., lest all sorts of terrible and unstoppable climatic events will happen within the next 12 years.

So may I assure all those who may be fearful, that there is no way in which the temperature of the Globe can be determined, nor is there a way in which to establish a Norm.

Lest you might imagine that I am making this claim, let me direct you to the websites of NASA. For this venerable body first of all does not claim to know a Global temperature, but only an average of near-surface temperatures. That is also a pretty complicated business, since, as the Earth rotates upon its own axis, the temperatures everywhere are in flux, changing all the time. So NASA makes clear that in fact it is impossible unless they establish a Norm, and this they do by creating ‘anomalies’.

Hey there, do you know what an anomaly is? It is a sort of marker, which if you can pitch it right you can show that the Earth is warming with wonderful graphs. Of course, if you pitch the anomaly a bit further up you can equally show that the Earth is cooling fast. Haha.

I do not wish to offend these earnest scientists, but this average of a near surface temperature, how is it done? You can ask Google – I did. Well there are some thousands of Weather Stations situated at 5 ft above he ground, mostly in low-lying areas close to sea level. But how many exist in the Himalayas, where it is a mite colder? How many weather stations in the Alps? How many in the Urals? Hey, wait a minute, how many stations are situated high up in the Rockies? Just look at any map – the Rockies are broad, high and vast? And what about the Andes, which run almost the length of South America? Are we seriously to believe that an average has been taken of all these high and often inaccessible areas – in order to establish a non- existent temperature, with which to strike fear into the minds of the most gullible?

I do know that there is supposed to be a Global Mean Temperature, but this should rightly be called a Global Meaningless Temperature. Why do I say that? Because quite simply it is not a fact of experience. It is a theory; it is meaningless.

In addition some 70{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the Earth’s surface is water. Can anyone seriously believe that it is even remotely possible to cover this stretch with instruments to measure the surface temperature 5 ft above the surface, let alone to establish an ‘anomaly’, a norm? And what about the ice of the Arctic and Antarctic?

So we have a double whammy – there is no such entity, as a Global temperature and the ‘anomalies’ are arbitrary, pitched in such a way as to persuade us all that the Globe is warming dangerously and we have caused it!

Let us examine next the Greenhouse Effect, since so many of us have greenhouses in our gardens where we like to grow tomatoes and cucumbers etcetera. Just imagine you were building a new greenhouse and having erected the sides, you ran out of glass panels to make the top. Suppose you put in chicken wiring or any kind of netting that had holes in it instead – would that be satisfactory? Would that retain the heat? You do not have to be a scientist to know that if the Greenhouse is open to the elements no heat will be retained even for a short time.

At sea level the molecules that compose the atmosphere are packed quite closely together. When the Sun is up and warms the Earth through its radiation, the warmed air rises up, the molecules spring out of their cage and separate. The higher they go the greater the space between the molecules. What is between the molecules? Precisely nothing, it is just empty, just vacuum – Avogadro’s Law.

So this is a fact of common scientific knowledge – I am not inventing anything new. At 30,000 feet where most planes fly the observed temperature is minus 55º Centigrade. It is cold, very cold, because there are great distances between the molecules. So what of the Greenhouse Effect? It is claimed by some scientists that the Greenhouse Gases form some sort of physical barrier to prevent the heat from the Earth escaping. Furthermore they pinpoint the blame for this barrier, this Greenhouse Effect, on the molecules of Carbon Dioxide. But if there are enormous holes between the molecules, such a supposed Greenhouse Effect is impossible.

We all know that we are constantly urged by these scientists that we must curb ‘emissions of Carbon Dioxide’, since these emissions supposedly cause Global Warming which in turn causes unlooked for changes in climate. I am afraid that what is claimed is simply nonsense. It is absolutely impossible for such a Greenhouse Effect to happen in our atmospheres. It is likewise totally impossible for Mankind to control the temperature of the Planet or of the near surface.

Now please don’t imagine that I, Anthony Bright-Paul, am claiming that I am right and these Professors are wrong, since among many of my friends this is indeed considered a sin. So I ask you simply, Is this something objective that you and everyman can observe for himself/herself? And as for the distance between the molecules of the atmosphere at altitude, is this not well known to any student of Physics?

There can be only one conclusion. There is warming and there is climate change, but neither of them are caused by Mankind and most certainly not by Carbon Dioxide.

So I am not disputing scientific laws, nor do I dispute that Carbon Dioxide absorbs infrared radiation – as indeed we all do when we sunbathe – nor do I dispute that climates are changing, maybe evolving, but I do dispute that Man warms the Globe or directly affects the Climate. Once we realise that the sky if full of holes, the Greenhouse theory is shot to pieces.


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    JAMES MATKIN

    |

    Anthony has written an excellent expose of perhaps the greatest fiction behind the alarmist’s global warming narrative. Global temperature is only a statistic no better then the numbers used in the averaging. It is so far from actual it is impossible to know if it represents a cooling or a warming. Even the very biased Hadley Centre admits as much – “Even though global warming is expressed as a single figure – the average temperature rise of the whole planet’s surface – the effect will not be spread evenly.
    Higher temperatures, fresh water shortages, higher sea levels and extreme weather events will each affect regions differently.
    A region’s vulnerability will depend not only on the nature and level of climate change, but on the capacity of local systems and populations to adapt to change.

    Essex and McKitrick in their book TAKEN BY STORM The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming add more supporting insights to this key global temperature nonsense. The Abstract following is from their research.

    Abstract

    Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed. Short title: Global Temperature?
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/860c/5a03ace0f1df81a6423b4494dcda4c024ee0.pdf

    Reply

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi James,

      I had not read your comments before I composed my comment and submitted it. Relative to the information of your comment, my comment is “the results of computations from physical models” are even more meaningless than an average Global Temperature. Which might seem very hard to do.

      Have a good temperature, Jerry

      Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Anthony,

    “For this venerable body [NASA] first of all does not claim to know a Global temperature, but only an average of near-surface temperatures. That is also a pretty complicated business, since, as the Earth rotates upon its own axis, the temperatures everywhere are in flux, changing all the time.”

    My comments are not intended to be critical of what you wrote; they are only to point to that your comments do not go far enough. Just as you began “there is no such entity as a Global Temperature”, there is no such thing as a average temperature. For, “the temperatures everywhere are in flux, changing all the time”, so there are only actual temperatures.

    But than the question becomes: What local temperature? “I do not wish to offend these earnest scientists, but this average of a near surface temperature, how is it done? You can ask Google – I did. Well there are some thousands of Weather Stations situated at 5 ft above he ground.”

    You, evidently NASA, and most others do not distinguish there usually is a difference between an actual surface temperature and a “near surface temperature” about “5 ft above the ground.” NOAA’s USCRN project (https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/scan/) measures and reports the average temperatures for the previous hour as well as the maximum temperature and minimum temperature (actual temperatures) of the previous hour for both the near-surface temperatures and the surface temperatures. In addition this project measures and reports the moisture contents and soil temperatures at the soil depths of 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100cm depths on the hour. These measurements are only made on the hour because their values do not rapidly vary as those of the air and surface temperatures can.

    These NOAA data are only land based. As you pointed out “In addition some 70% of the Earth’s surface is water. ” NOAA measures coastal ocean temperatures (https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/cwtg/cpac.html). And another NOAA site is (https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/contour/. However, when I tried to access its data I received a message that I needed permission.

    I have a lot more confident about measurements made at (near) the surface than those measured from a satellite.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Kevin Cullen

    |

    Anthony, that was a wonderful explanation on how things really are.
    Thank you
    Kevin

    Reply

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    Anthony Bright-Paul,
    Just one small thing in an otherwise worthy piece, you write…
    “I know that this flies in the face of many scientists belonging to the Intercontinental Panel on Climate Change, … ”
    The UN-IPCC is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [see https://www.ipcc.ch/ ] — perhaps the use of an overeager spell-checker?

    Note
    If the average global temperature is (or was) x°C and some (new) energy source on the planet adds some heat at z°C into the mix, you can not just add x°C to z°C to get the final temperature.
    Yet effectively ‘climate science™’ says that when using the S-B equations. But do the algebraic sum of two discrete radiation fluxes (and these can be resolved to temperatures) truly equate to the solution of their Stefan-Boltzmann equation for temperature? Surely Planck curves for the temperatures corresponding to the value of the radiative fluxes must be considered.
    Isn’t this similar to saying, if I add some quantity of a gas at say 16.7°C to the atmosphere at 16.3°C the final temperature is 33°C?
    [for more on this see commenter ‘Rosco’s paper at https://www.dropbox.com/s/oi4jz1cxrfap7ro/Is%20any%20object%20heated%20by%20radiation%20from%20a%20colder%20object.docx
    It all seems to make sense to me but I’m a bit out of sorts at the moment]
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Also Anthony please note that a ‘climate’ is a regional occurrence, natural climate change normally doesn’t happen globally, at least not without some very extreme event occurring (large meteor strike, a volcanic eruption larger than Mt. Tambora, or maybe even an earth bound large CME/Carrington Event).

    Sorry can’t return for a while as I’ve other important (medical) matters to attend to.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via