What A Mess! Spiegel Reveals Scientists Don’t Know Real Temperature Of The Planet

The Germany-based European Institute For Climate and Energy (EIKE) alerts here that it is now obvious nobody really knows what the real mean global temperature is, and that claims that the planet is the hottest it’s been since measurements began are not making any sense.

In 1995 it was 15.4°C. Today we are told it is 14.8°C – a new record!

For decades it had been assumed that the globe’s normal 20th century mean temperature was 15°C. But suddenly this year it is reported all over the media that 2016 reached a new record: 14.8°C!

ZDF weather moderator Benjamin Stöwe announced in January, 2017, that at 14.8°C 2016 had been the “hottest year” since measurements began. It’s no typo. Image: ZDF

14.8°C in 2016?

In 1995 Spiegel and many others, citing James Hansen, reported that the global temperature had reached a “record” 15.4°C!

This led EIKE Vice President Michael Limburg to write: “The warmest year since the start of measurements is revealed to be significantly cooler than the 1995 mean value, which was 15.4°C.”

Readers by now are certainly asking themselves what the hell is going on here!

“Something astonishing”

It turns out that researchers of the Klimamanifestes von Heiligenroth put out a video that examines the absolute temperature value of the globe instead of the anomaly. And what they found in the literature, Limburg writes, “is something astonishing“:

The hottest year ever 2016 (14.8°C) is in fact 0.6°C cooler than 1995 (15.4°C)!

The video here sums up the history of the normal absolute global mean temperature, which for decades had been in fact assumed to be 15°C. Here’s the chronology of what literature kept stating in the past:

1896: Svante Arrhenius, 15.0°C
1975: Stephen H. Schneider, 15.0°C
1979: Christian Schönwiese, 15.0°C
1981: James Hansen, 15.0°C
1986: Spiegel, 15°C
1988: Hansen, NYT, 15°C
1988/1989: Der Spiegel, James Hansen, 15.4°C
1995: no publications found under 15°C.
1995: Spiegel, citing James Hansen, 15.4°C (see image below)

1995 global temperature: 15.4°C. Image cropped from Spiegel

2017: WMO, ZDF, Spiegel, 14.8°C (“record high”)

Up to 1995 the normal global mean temperature had always been assumed to be 15°C and its rise to 15.5°C was considered a sign of rapid warming.

Spiegel’s tangled web

After 1995 the chaos surrounding the determination of the absolute mean global temperature seems to begin, and no one knows what happened. Today the WMO and ZDF German television are suddenly telling the public that the global temperature in 2016 was 14.8°C, “a new record”!

Earlier in 2002, Spiegel reported a northern hemisphere mean temperature of 15.7°C. That was the last time Spiegel printed the absolute global mean temperature.

With all the confusion since 1995, Spiegel in its print edition in 2015 dropped altogether the absolute temperature and switched to using the mean temperature anomaly, and this time from a whole new data source: Japan Meteorological Agency. The main thing was to show readers a rapidly increasing temperatures, details and contradictions be damned.

Then on January 18, 2017, the online Spiegel too suddenly switched to the new 14°C base, proclaiming a new all time record of 14.8°C (in 1995 they reported 15.4°C)!

Image cropped from Spiegel online.

Unwittingly, Spiegel has in effect exposed the widespread confusion concerning absolute global mean temperature and the fact that it seems to have been rolled back 1°C, from 15°C to 14°C. It seems no one knows what it really is.

After Spiegel editor Marco Evers had been asked repeatedly by e-mail to explain what was going on, he tersely wrote back (see below) that he saw “no reason to pursue the correspondence further” and that they relied on “peer-reviewed literature, consensus documents from institutions like the IPCC, as well as NASA and the WMO“.

Obviously there’s complete confusion as to what the globe’s absolute mean temperature should be. Depending on the source, it is either 14.8°C (WMO), or 15.8°C (NASA). Here we are talking about a whole degree difference from institutions that claim the ability to measure global temperature down to a few hundredths of a degree.

Would the real temperature please stand up!

It’s such a mess that in its April 1, 2017, edition Spiegel even stopped showing a temperature chart altogether when reporting on the “new 2016 record”, choosing instead to simply bang on about the “hottest year ever”, the Klimamanifest video tells us.

Faking fake news

It’s little wonder some readers recently have been intensively questioning Spiegel over the huge discrepancy, especially at Twitter, where the German weekly refuses to provide an answer. Obviously the matter is highly embarrassing for Spiegel.

The climate reporting situation obviously has gotten so bad that when the media start faking fake news, the truth comes out!

Clearly Spiegel had been led around by the nose by a bunch of sloppy scientists for decades.

 

87 responses to “What A Mess! Spiegel Reveals Scientists Don’t Know Real Temperature Of The Planet”

  1. A C Osborn
    1. Russell
  2. Paul Aubrin

    Temperatures of the past have been changing so often and so quickly.
    Exemples: NASA Giss change log (changes are even worse with previous versions of the the same table).
    https://www.changedetection.com/log/gov/nasa/giss/data/glb_log5.html

    https://oneillp.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/marseille-jan-1978/

  3. SebastianH

    Readers by now are certainly asking themselves what the hell is going on here!

    Exactly. WTH is going on here? Did you just try to “diss” Der Spiegel over them using different sources? Trying to construct a straw man to somehow disprove the increase in all temperature records we have? And in the comment section – again – that “oh they adjusted the data, so everything must be false” argument. If that is not conspiracy talk at it’s finest, what is? 😉

    1. A C Osborn

      SebastianH, I have a couple of little question for you.
      I assume that you know how Anomalies and Baselines work.
      ie you compute some baseline(average)over a defined period and then calculate the deviation to obtain the anomaly for whatever period you are looking at ie a day, a month, a quarter, a year, a decade etc.
      Now go to the 2 links that I provided, on the first link you will see the Annual Report for 1997, where the NOAA made a very serious error, you see they quoted the “Actual Temperature”, (The baseline plus the Anomaly for that year) instead of just the anomaly, it was a temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit or 16.92 C.
      Now go to the second link or use the first link and change it to 1998.
      You will se that it says “The largest anomaly occurred in 1998, making it the warmest year since widespread instrument records began in the late Nineteenth Century. The second warmest year was 1997, and seven of the ten warmest years have occurred in the 1990s.”
      So it was hotter than 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit or 16.92 C.

      Now NOAA have made this note for the 1997 Report “Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently.”
      So if the baseline was changed to a lower one that means that the Anomaly for 1997 would be LARGER than the original using the original baseline, because they quoted the computed ACTUAL temperature and not the Anomaly.

      You can’t just use the original anomaly with the new baseline can you?

      Now we come to the 1998 report, it gets worse because they now state
      “PLEASE NOTE: The ranks and temperature anomalies in this report represent the values known at the time the report was issued. The actual ranks will change as subsequent years are added to the dataset. The anomalies themselves may change slightly as missing or erroneous data is resolved. Also, in 2009, NCDC switched to ERSST version 3b (from version 2) as a component of its global surface temperature dataset. Because the versions have slightly different methodologies, the calculated temperature anomalies will differ slightly. ”
      So “Differ slightly”.
      The second question for you is

      Do you consider over 1.5 degree Celsius to “differ slightly” from the original and the difference justifiable considering that it was only 20 years ago that it was computed, where the measurement were taken using basically the same Instrumentation and at the same time of day as is currently used?

      Of course NCDC have also completely changed the dataset for the 1997/98 calculations as well, because obviously the original Readings were no good.

      Also note current Record Breaking Temperatures do so by tenths or hundredths of a degree, not over 1.5 degrees.

      Perhaps Sod would also like to comment on how the those useless bloody Scientists in 1998 and 1989 could get it so wrong (Aren’t they basically the same bunch as now?).

      1. SebastianH

        You need a baseline to calculate anomalies, but you don’t need an absolute value. If you have a weather station at home it will likely not show you a correct value for relative humidity. But you can write down the values anyway and make a graph of the anomalies. Even though your humidity might be off by 10%, you can still get the trend.

        1. ClimateOtter

          That does not answer any of his questions.

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            Chatbots never do.

          2. SebastianH

            It answers the question on how to calculate anomalies. I don’t know why A C Osborn think that baseline matters. If the assumes global average temperature in 1998 would have been 50 °C the anomalies still would be the same as with -30 °C. Definetly not larger as he claims.

          3. A C Osborn

            Moronic answer.

      2. sod

        “Perhaps Sod would also like to comment on how the those useless bloody Scientists in 1998 and 1989 could get it so wrong”

        sorry folks, but the idea that scientists are not aware of the different base temperatures is simply silly.

        It is only EIKE that is pointing at the different numbers and making a fuss about it.

        please link and quote a scientific paper that gets stuff wrong because of this effect. Until you do that, you are chasing ghosts.

        1. A C Osborn

          Sod, you didn’t answer the questions, it is not a case of them NOT knowing, it is the case of them being totally incompetent 20 years ago, so much so that since then they have had to reduce the Temperatures for 1997/8 by over 1.5 degrees C.
          Which is not the “Slight difference” quoted by NOAA.

          So, Yes or NO, are you OK with that reduction in those temperatures?

  4. Istvan Marko

    Dear Pierre,

    The notion of single average temperature for our planet is a nonsense, if only because temperature is an intensive variable that cannot be averaged in a non homogeneous medium. Earth is not homogeneous. The anomalies are an even more ridiculous value, far far away from any physical meaning whatsoever. They are just some statistical data used for calculating trends. Like astrophysicists do for far away planets or stars, we can have a rough estimate of this meaningless temperature value with significant error values.

    As ever,

    Istvan

    1. sod

      “The notion of single average temperature for our planet is a nonsense, if only because temperature is an intensive variable that cannot be averaged in a non homogeneous medium. ”

      we are using a grid to average temperature. you are getting this wrong. please stop this pseudo-science talk!

      1. Colorado Wellington

        Sod off, swampy. You don’t have a clue what he’s talking about.

        1. sod

          “Sod off, swampy. You don’t have a clue what he’s talking about.”

          he does not have a clue what he is talking about. He is using a scientific term (intensive variable) without understanding it. This kind of pseudo-science-speak (“convective atmosphere” is another example) is one of the main tricks used here, mostly to confuse the uneducated even further.

          temperature is a prime example of an “intensive” variable, BUT you need to look closer:

          “the temperature of a system in thermal equilibrium is the same as the temperature of any part of it. If the system is divided the temperature of each subsystem is identical.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_and_extensive_properties#Intensive_properties

          Now it is utterly obvious, that we are NOT dealing with a system a system in thermal equilibrium (which has the same temperature at every place). So we use a GRID to divide the globe into zones and then use the temperature measurements inside a grid cell (and yes, until “sceptics” cough up some money and put a station in every cell, we might not have the perfect data they demand…) and then averages make sense again.

          PS: if you have some money left, we could also change to measuring heat contend and avoid this fruitless discussion..

          1. Paul

            Sod, why should we put up money to pay for a weather station in every cell. “We” are not the ones trying to prove AGW, “You” are.

      2. AndyG55

        Sob-sob… why do you insist on continuing to show your total lack of education in maths and science?

        And who is this “we” you are yapping about.???

        Don’t tell me you are your mates are involved.. that would explain so many things.

        You are again showing yourself to be one of the lowest educated people on the planet.

      3. John F. Hultquist

        What is the resolution of the grid — how many cells?
        What sort of instruments are in each cell?
        If a cell doesn’t have instruments, what is done?

        1. Hivemind

          How many cells? Well, Canberra is split over three valleys. Even though the weather in each valley can vary significantly, it only has two measuring stations; one is sited at that lovely site of maximum UHI, Canberra Airport. The other, somewhere in Woden; we can only assume it is a carpark with convenient access.

          So to answer your question: a very large number. It is plain the existing “grid” of temperature stations is completely inadequate. The only possible approach is satellite measurement, but that is largely dismissed because it doesn’t show the warming desire.

    2. Will Janoschka

      “They are just some statistical data used for calculating trends.”

      Physical temperature is but sensible heat divided by specific heat of some fixed mass, it has no other meaning There is absolutely zero science in this political fraud. Guess who are the ‘deniers’ of science now?

  5. edmh

    If it did not matter so much this confusion would be funny.

    But it does matter !!

    The world is talking about investing something in the region of ~$13 trillion, (~$13,000,000,000,000), on controlling global warming to meet the commitments of the Paris Climate Accord. That is in the region of 12 % of Global annual GDP.

    See:
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/15/report-only-12-7-trillion-needed-to-meet-paris-climate-accords-goal/

    As the UK Met Office CET record, (albeit geographically localised), since 2000 has been cooling at a rate of 1.9 deg C / century and the last millennium since the year 1000AD has certainly been the coldest of our currently hugely beneficial Holocene interglacial.

    Surely it is not unreasonable to able to question the assertions that would demand the expenditure of such vast amounts of the World’s resources and also to question if there were other more deserving uses for the money.

    Rather than spending it to prevent events that are not certain to happen in the coming century and were they to occur did they could only be substantially beneficial.

    1. SebastianH

      I bet you are the guy in your company that constantly questions why QA exists and why so much resources are used to build proper products that are ment to be failsafe. Nothing ever happens, so why the expenses? Right? 😉

      1. yonason (from my cell phone)

        Totally missing the point AGAIN, chatbot-SebH!

        1. SebastianH

          The point is too much spending to prevent something that isn’t sure to happen or in this case the extend of the damage might not be known. He would rather spend the money on adapting to it.

          Do you see that differently?

          And that’s exactly what some say about QA in companies. “Nothing ever happens, so why spent money trying to prevent stuff happening? We could as well spent the money in case something happens and may be better off”.

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            Lousy analogy, as usual.

            Not at all the same. Company selling product to meet customer need vs environment over which we have no control. VERY DIFFERENT.

  6. tom0mason

    As I have said on other blogs before, global temperature is a myth in the same dreamworld as global climate!

    The ONLY effects that matter are regional and local temperatures, regional and local climate changes. All else is just homogenized BS designed to dupe the public and politicians into believing the unbelievable.

  7. sod

    different ways of measuring the temperature of the earth will give different results. This article is showing scientific understanding of a pre-school level.

    this is, why we are dealing with anomalies, and not with absolute numbers. Does nobody at EIKE even understand the basics?

    1. AndyG55

      “This article is showing scientific understanding of a pre-school level.”

      And sob-sob is STILL unable to comprehend it. !!

      And your child-minded analogy only works if no-one adjust the scales or changes the set of scales being used.

      You do know how household scales work, don’t you sob-sob.. and the many things that can affect the measurement shown on them?

      I guess, for you, living in your inner city basement you have to watch your weight closely.. Its all you have.

  8. tom0mason

    Of course the laughable greenhouse theory is intimately tied into the ideas of estimating the global temperature and comparing to the Moon to get an idea of what the global temperature should be. However as badly as they measure the Earth’s temperature may also be applied to the estimation made of the Moon’s temperature.

    “It has been claimed that the GHE (Greenhouse Effect) is 33 Kelvin because the Earth’s average temperature is 288 K compared to a temperature of 255 K assumed for an “Airless Earth”. The Diviner LRO showed that the Moon’s average temperature is 197.3 K which makes one wonder how an estimate based on impeccable mathematics could be so wrong? Vasavada et al. published a paper in 2012 that mentioned a one-dimensional model of the Moon’s regolith. As I was unable to obtain details of this model I attempted to replicate it using Quickfield, a powerful FEA (Finite Element Analysis) program. Results obtained using my model were published here…”

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/

  9. Stuart Lynne

    Just some more (ahem…. climate) models. They input collected temperature measurements into a model, out pop’s a figure.

    Don’t like that number, then “refine” the model a bit.

    Its models all the way down (and up in this case!)

  10. AndyG55

    Well,

    I’m off on a business/research trip for a week. 🙂

    Would someone PLEASE at least try to get seb and sob up to junior high level science and maths while I’m gone.

    1. Graeme No.3

      In a week? You are asking for something as impossible as getting them to shut up for a week. sod seems to believe that his rants are the only thing stopping the World getting cooler.

      1. AndyG55

        Certainly a load of meaningless hot air.. with PLENTY of CO2 output !

        Living in an inner-city ghetto is the exemplary “green” meme.

        Down here in Australia, the only seats help by the “Greens” are inner city yuppy, virtue-signalling areas, with a 10 mile high carbon footprint.

        Off to expend some flying CO2 in about an hour ! 🙂

        1. SebastianH

          Have a good trip. I will enjoy not having to read your nonsense, rage filled, no concrete numbers replies.

          Regarding math: get your units correct and we’ll talk about junior high level math skills 😀

          1. AndyG55

            Poor seb, your pre-junior maths skills have been shown to be laughably INEPT.

            Its who you are.

    2. Mindert Eiting

      Remedial teaching is usually not for free. 50 Euros per hour?

    3. Albert Stienstra

      seb and sob are preprogrammed robots. The only way to change their output is to address their owner.

      1. SebastianH

        So in your mind AI has already surpassed the cognitive abilities of climate skeptics? 🙂 Glad to here that my programmers are this good.

        But really, is that what you have to resort to when you run out of arguments?

  11. Derek Colman

    It is impossible anyway to establish an accurate global mean temperature from ground station data which has been subjectively adjusted. Ground stations are extremely unevenly distributed around the globe with some areas having almost swarms of them and others virtually none. No matter how much the scientists protest, you can’t get away from the adjustments to raw data being no more than opinions. Also these records have been readjusted as new opinions replace old opinions. These records are just a joke and statements of “hottest year ever” are risible.
    Even satellite data is questionable, but as adjustments are many times smaller and there is a correlation with radiosonde thermometer readings, they are probably nearer to the truth.
    The truth is we don’t know for sure if the planet is warming, and if it is by how much, or what is causing it.Thank God for the consensus. The Pope has all the answers and he is God’s messenger, so he must be right. Right?

    1. SebastianH

      Do you think ground stations have only been placed where temperature increased in the past century and places where it cooled have been conveniently left out?

      1. ClimateOtter

        Answer this one: How many stations were there 30 years ago, and how many are there now?

      2. RAH

        OK SebastianH. Show us the ground stations reporting world wide and their locations (and you’ll find out there are huge areas with no stations at all like almost all of the interior of the African continent.) Then show us the ones from which the data were used to come up with global temperatures. The maps with the info are out there.

      3. Mindert Eiting

        OK Seb, an important medical survey, to be published in the Lancet, concerned ten thousand patients using a new medicine. After many years the results proved to be that there was a gradual increase of the mean of a certain health measurement. However, almost all patients dropped out in the course of time. Some of them were replaced by new patients and at the end there were one thousand left. Moreover, the drop-out was not random but was initiated by the scientists who send patients home whose profile deviated too much from the average. Of course, the scientists did everything to repair the figures by gridding, homogenizing, and adjusting. Just trust us, they said because 97 percent of our colleagues stand behind us. Peer reviewers for the Lancet rejected the study and you may tell us the reason why.

      4. yonason (from my cell phone)

        Short answer – “Yes.”

        Long answer – see Mindert Eiting’s excellent response.

        Yup. Delete the rural stations, and “adjust” the past.
        https://www.google.com/amp/s/notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/temperature-adjustments-around-the-world/amp/

        Dr Keen addressed the problem, and others, here.
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA

        Tony Heller exposes the fraud with their own data.
        https://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-climate-data/

    2. 4TimesAYear

      Well, if we look at human behavior, it’s pretty safe to say there is no catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

      Year after year people return to our county, state, and national parks.
      Year after year people return to exotic global tourist destinations.

      If catastrophic anthropogenic global warming were happening, these places would be disappearing.

      But they are not.

      People continue to drive through New England to see the fall colors.
      People still go to ski resorts to schuss down the mountainsides.
      They continue to hike the Grand Canyon and climb El Capitan and Everest.
      Year after year there are record breaking crops.
      The western US saw record breaking snowfall this last winter.
      They’re still digging out park roads.
      No one is moving out of Manhattan or away from shorelines; the price of beach-front property is still sky-high.
      Those supposedly sinking islands they keep telling us about? They are still selling homes and even building new ones.
      Tourists still go visit.

      Where is the climate catastrophe?

  12. David Holliday

    On another point, accepting the 15 C as the base and 15.8 C as 2016 average were looking at .8 C since 1897. That’s what? 119 years. Seriously? Where’s the crisis?

    1. A C Osborn

      You forgot half of that 0.8 is from the adjustments, as outlind by NOAA themselves.

  13. RAH

    They’ve been screwing with the numbers so long that the numbers are now screwing them! Year after year we have heard “hottest year ever” and year after year we’re still here and nothing out of the ordinary is happening. Of course the ones with the thickest skulls will never catch on but most folks that have lived a few decades already understand the whole thing is a scam.

  14. yonason (from my cell phone)

    AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH?

    Why do they use only the daytime highs for that determination? Since half of the world is in darkness all the time, and daytime highs only last for a few hours, I would think the actual temperature is far lower.

    Tracking daytime highs may have some utility, but I wish they would stop calling it something it isn’t.

    Tony Heller does an excellent job of exposing the chicanery of leftist pseudo-scientists’ temperature “adjustments,” without which no warming would be seen at all.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5ATswpscuUg

    1. sod

      “Why do they use only the daytime highs for that determination? Since half of the world is in darkness all the time, and daytime highs only last for a few hours, I would think the actual temperature is far lower. ”

      they do not do that. Oh my god!

      1. yonason (from my cell phone)

        Yeah, I know how they do it. Just jerking your chain.

        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          Notice the difference in responses he/she/it/whatever has to what appears are to be a real mistake, and the pretty much scripted responses to correct material we post. That seems to me to be evidence that they know what they are saying is false. Not conclusive, but indicative. Very indicative.

          1. SebastianH

            Do you know that some of the stuff you are saying is false and just do it to “jerk the chain”? Are you a troll?

          2. AndyG55

            Only “trolls” and “jerks” around here are you and sob.

            everyone knows that..

            even YOU know that, but are INCAPABLE of even telling the truth even to yourself.

            Your existence is one big LIE.

      2. DirkH

        sod 18. June 2017 at 9:19 AM | Permalink | Reply
        ““Why do they use only the daytime highs for that determination? Since half of the world is in darkness all the time, and daytime highs only last for a few hours, I would think the actual temperature is far lower. ”
        they do not do that. Oh my god!”

        Sod, you fear high temperatures. So it should be great news to you that the real average temperature is far lower. Why are you not happy?

        Because it was never about temperatures. It is all about gaining dictatorial powers over everyone.

        You and your lunatic party the Greens are rejected. Go to Venezuela and enjoy socialism there.

  15. yonason (from my cell phone)

    With their adjustments and the data they make up, it’s not hard to see how they can get the warming they want, even when it isn’t there.
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/06/13/serious-quality-problems-in-the-surface-temperature-data-sets-ross-mckittrick/

  16. rogojel

    Hi,
    this is a lotsimpler than that: peovising an average without a confidence interval is meaningless. The maximum or trend of meaningleas numbers is also meaningless.

    1. yonason (from my cell phone)
  17. dennisambler

    NASA/GISS under the imprimature of Gavin Schmidt, says that Global Mean Temperature is 14 degrees C, (roughly!):

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html

    “The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)

    The GISTEMP analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature. Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980. The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region.

    What exactly do we mean by SAT?
    A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground.

    If the reported SATs are not the true SATs, why are they still useful?
    A. The reported temperature is truly meaningful only to a person who happens to visit the weather station at the precise moment when the reported temperature is measured, in other words, to nobody.

    What do I do if I need absolute SATs, not anomalies?
    A. In 99.9% of the cases you’ll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.”

    My own opinion is that it is minus 16.25 deg C, as follows. Take the hottest temperature, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth:

    “The standard measuring conditions for temperature are in the air, 1.5 meters above the ground, and shielded from direct sunlight. The highest confirmed temperature on Earth recorded according to these measures was 56.7 °C (134.1 °F) in Furnace Creek Ranch, California, located in the Death Valley desert in the United States, on July 10, 1913.”

    Then take the lowest temperature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth

    “The lowest natural temperature ever directly recorded at ground level on Earth is −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F; 184.0 K), which was at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica by ground measurements.”

    Add them together, divide by two and you get minus 16.25 deg C, simples, yes?

  18. Che disastro! Spiegel rivela agli scienziati di non conoscere la temperatura reale del pianeta : Attività Solare ( Solar Activity )

    […] Fonte: notrickszone […]

  19. Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

    […] NoTricksZone covers scientists not known the real temperature of the planet […]

  20. Harry Dale Huffman

    All of the comments here are just so much noise and continued vain argument. I have been warning about the untrustworthiness of the global temperature data for years, basically since my November 2010 Venus/Earth temperature-vs-pressure comparison, which precisely confirmed the Standard Atmosphere model of the Earth’s troposphere–and not only definitively disproved the consensus “greenhouse effect” but also the radiative transfer theory of atmospheric warming. See for example:

    “The Bottom Line About Climate Science”

    and

    “It Is Fraud, Not Climate Science At All”

    1. dennisambler

      It seems others have been looking:

      https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/foundations-of-greenhouse-theory-challenged-by-new-analysis-of-solar-system-observations/

      But they haven’t read your work, as they claim theirs is unique.

      “Using dimensional analysis (a classical technique for inferring physically meaningful relationships from measured data), they show that the long-term global equilibrium surface temperature of bodies in the solar system as diverse as Venus, the Moon, Earth, Mars, Titan and Triton can accurately be described using only two predictors: the mean distance from the Sun and the total atmospheric surface pressure.

      This type of cross-planetary analysis using vetted NASA observations has not been conducted by any other authors. It represents the first and only attempt in the history of climate science to assess Earth’s surface temperature in the context of a cosmic physical continuum defined by actual planetary-scale observations.

      The result is a new insight that planetary climates are independent of the infrared optical depth of their atmospheres arising from their composition, and that the long-wave ‘back radiation’ is actually a product of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it.”

  21. DirkH

    “Obviously the matter is highly embarrassing for Spiegel.”

    No it isn’t. SPIEGEL is not interested in facts or logics but in winning. Likewise, they are not interested whether anything they report is true but whether it evokes an emotional response that serves the purpose of their paymaster and owner BERTELSMANN, a tax-exempt foundation that runs the second biggest propaganda web right after the state media.
    BERTELSMANN also serves as policy-dictating “Think Tank” to the Old Parties SPD, CDU.
    SPIEGEL will be kept alive even if they run losses as they are useful to the oligarchy. Like WaPo, NYT, Guardian, together forming the axis of evil of Western Journalism.

  22. What A Mess! Spiegel Reveals Scientists Don’t Know Real Temperature Of The Planet – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Ref.: http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/17/what-a-mess-spiegel-reveals-scientists-dont-know-real-temperature… […]

  23. Agent76

    Nov 28, 2016 Weather is NOT Climate!

    No, weather is NOT climate…even when it’s warm outside. But in case there’s a climate cultist in your life that insists otherwise, here are some facts about global warming and vaguely-defined “extreme” weather that you can use to talk some sense into them.

    https://youtu.be/sT4133vfTmk

  24. Mick J

    There is an essay looking at the base value change at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html

    The essay ends with the following:
    “The 1998 edition of the annual publication of Worldwatch Institute uses 14 degrees Celsius as the global average temperature and provides details of how it was informed of the change from 15 degrees Celsius. On page 69 of the report, a footnote below the table listing the global average temperatures for several years states:

    Base number is 1 degree Celsius lower than in earlier Vital Signs.

    On page 174 of the same report, we see the explanation for the change.

    In earlier versions of Vital Signs, Worldwatch added the temperature change reported by the Goddard Institute to an estimated global temperature of 15 degrees Celsius, but the institute has since informed Worldwatch that a better base number would be 14 degrees Celsius. James Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, email to author, 18 January 1998.”

  25. David South

    A UCLA professor says “the mean surface temperature on Earth is a temperate 295K (71.6 ºF).” http://staff.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml I e-mailed him and told him the value was wrong… he said it was likely a mistake…. but he has yet to change his claim. I conclude some university folks just do not care what mean value they tell the public. BTW… the mean temperature of the Earth with no atmosphere is about -75 C… (when math is done correctly). This means the 33 C warming claim is wrong.

  26. Klimathotet och jordens glidande medeltemperatur - Avancemang

    […] diskussionen kärna befinner sig den svårgreppbara termen jordens medeltemperatur. Är det någon som vet vad normalvärdet är? Brukar det nämnas i dagstidningar och debatter? […]

  27. What A Mess! Spiegel Reveals Scientists Don’t Know Real Temperature Of The Planet – Infinite Unknown

    […] – What A Mess! Spiegel Reveals Scientists Don’t Know Real Temperature Of The Planet […]

  28. Mogar

    I always thought that the concept that these “scientists” could measure the temperature of this planet’s atmosphere to tenths of a degree accuracy was laughable. An atmosphere of a PLANET which is 300 miles from top to bottom. Even if you only look at the first 10 miles, where most of the atmosphere is, it poses an enormous sampling problem. But of course this same “problem” allows them to play fast and loose with statistics and generate whatever answer is required.

  29. 4TimesAYear

    There is no single global temperature. There’s not even an accurate average. And an average is a statistic, not a temperature.

  30. Rosco

    The funny thing is humanity does not measure “surface” temperatures over land – NEVER HAVE !

    The air temperature is measured and mostly by old equipment where any claimed accuracy of 0.5°C is probably unrealistic.

    Then this mass of “data” is combined with the sea surface water temperature ??

    You might as well add apples with oranges and arrive at a grapefruit anomaly.

    As for whether 14°C or 15°C is the supposed “average global temperature” for the 20th century the answer is indisputably 15°C!

    Not only was this quoted almost universally it forms the basis of the ludicrous greenhouse effect :-

    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/

    “Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C).”

    March 1998 !!

    15°C was universally quoted !

Leave a Reply