Dear readers – your help needed in fun crowdsourcing project

Did you know… there is no global temperature?
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
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.

Conclusion:

There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the equation of state
governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the implications cannot be avoided by substituting statistics for physics. Since temperature is an intensive variable, the total temperature is meaningless in terms of the system being measured, and hence any one simple average has no necessary meaning. Neither does temperature have a constant proportional relationship with energy or other extensive thermodynamic properties.
Averages of the Earth’s temperature field are thus devoid of a physical context which
would indicate how they are to be interpreted, or what meaning can be attached to changes
in their levels, up or down. Statistics cannot stand in as a replacement for the missing physics because data alone are context-free. Assuming a context only leads to paradoxes such as
simultaneous warming and cooling in the same system based on arbitrary choice in some
free parameter. Considering even a restrictive class of admissible coordinate transformations yields families of averaging rules that likewise generate opposite trends in the same data,
and by implication indicating contradictory rankings of years in terms of warmth.
The physics provides no guidance as to which interpretation of the data is warranted.
Since arbitrary indexes are being used to measure a physically non-existent quantity, it is
not surprising that different formulae yield different results with no apparent way to select
among them.
The purpose of this paper was to explain the fundamental meaninglessness of so-called
global temperature data. The problem can be (and has been) happily ignored in the name of
the empirical study of climate. But nature is not obliged to respect our statistical conventions and conceptual shortcuts. Debates over the levels and trends in so-called global temperatures will continue interminably, as will disputes over the significance of these things for the human experience of climate, until some physical basis is established for the meaningful measurement of climate variables, if indeed that is even possible.
It may happen that one particular average will one day prove to stand out with some
special physical significance. However, that is not so today. The burden rests with those
who calculate these statistics to prove their logic and value in terms of the governing dynamical equations, let alone the wider, less technical, contexts in which they are commonly
encountered.

Arctic/Antarctic see-saw. Refutes consensus conjecture that CO2 is a major player regarding climate.

Did you know that leading climate scientists reject actual data in favour of artificial models?
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

Did you know that vegetation grows by a process called photosythesis in which CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere, the Carbon is stored and the Oxygen released?
Did you know that coal is fossilised vegetation, so all of the carbon in coal was once in CO2 in the atmosphere, at which time growing conditions were evidently ideal since there are still gigatonnes of coal reserves?
Did you know that the ONLY scientifically proven effect of higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased plant growth and higher crop yields, which is why market gardeners increase the level of CO2 in their greenhouses? (Smokey had a link for this)

Sorry. Add an ‘n’ to photosynthesis

Did you know that the fact that a model reproduces the data it was created with does not prove the model can predict the future.

“””””…..NetDr says:
October 20, 2012 at 9:41 am
Gary
You must be poorly informed as the logarithmic relationship of CO2 is known by all but small children. Please read before you post …..”””””
And I must be a small children. A logarthmic relation for CO2 means going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm gives the same Temperature change as going from one CO2 molecule in the atmosphere to two molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere. The logarithm is a very well defined function for positive real numbers.
There’ is NO experimentally measured data, that better fits a logarithmic cuve than the linear one (Between 315 and 400 ppm for which we have data) and there’s also no theoretical basis for believing it is logarithmic. The Beer-Lambert law does not apply, since the absorbed energy does not stay absorbed; it is re-emitted at some other frequency range.

Did you know we are all carbon based life forms?
Did you know that every cell in your body contains carbon that has once been part of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere?
Did you know that the difference between animals and plants is that plants can make their own food (out of CO2 by a process called photosynthesis). Animals cannot make their own food and have to eat plants (or other animals which in turn eat plants). Without CO2 the plants would die – and soon after, so would all the animals. CO2 is the single gas essential to all life on Earth. Did you also know that the EPA classify it as a pollutant?
Did you know we are technically still in an ice age? In geological terms an ice age is whenever there are permanent ice sheets on the planet. We have been in the current ice age for about 3 million years. This ice age is punctuated by interglacial periods in which the world warms up temporarily. These interglacial periods occur in a regular pattern about every 100, 000 years. We are in one now. This is a pattern that has been repeated about 30 times as far as we know over the last 3 million years. This current interglacial is called the Holocene.
Did you that our interglacial is cooler than previous interglacials, although CO2 levels are a lot higher now?
Did you know that temperatures have increased by only a fraction of a degree Celsius since 1880? Did you know that about 11,000 years ago, at the end of the Younger Dryas period,, temperatures rose abruptly by up to ten degrees Celsius within a decade or two?