# David Bidstrup: What is 2 + 2? An old joke re-told.

An Engineer, a Mathematician and a “Climate scientist” are each asked “what is 2 + 2?

The Engineer says “somewhere between 3.9 and 4.1”, the Mathematician says “4” and the “Climate scientist” says “what would you like it to be?”

This is the problem we have today.

“Climate change” can be anything you want if you are a “follower”.

If science is supposed to be the pursuit of “truth” through the application of the “scientific method” then the behaviour of the pro-climate change brigade shows that they are not interested in participating.

When I look at the variety of temperature “measurements” that somehow determine the “global average temperature” and the statistical jiggery pokery that is used to “process” them I wonder why anyone swallows the result.

As example, ocean temperatures are supposedly taken by “Argo buoys”. There are 4,000 buoys and 360 million square kilometres of ocean. That’s one measurement for every 90,000 square kilometres.

By comparison, South Australia has an area of 984,000 square kilometres so it is equivalent to taking South Australia’s “average temperature” with 11 readings.

Satellites measure “near surface temperature” indirectly. Wikipedia – the great climate change proselytising organ – says the following. (The italics are mine).

“Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.

The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances.

As a result, different groups that have analysed the satellite data have produced differing temperature datasets.

The satellite time series is not homogeneous. It is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical sensors. The sensors also deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for orbital drift and decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult”.

Added to this are a number of terrestrial measurements from ordinary old weather stations, but I cannot find a definitive number.

All of this data gets “processed” with “algorithms” that fill in the blanks with “estimates” and the output is a number that is meaningless in the real world – the “average temperature” of the earth that has an area of 510 million square kilometres.

Is your BS alarm screaming yet?

Looking at 2 places in South Australia for 12 December, using BOM data, Oodnadatta had an average for the day of 34.15, ((46.7+21.6)/2). Kingscote had an average of 21.2, ((33.8+8.6)/2).

There is a 13 degree difference between the “averages” and both are well in excess of the supposed “global mean” of about 14 degrees.

Oodnadatta was 20 degrees “hotter” and Kingscote was 8 degrees “hotter” than the “global mean”.

So what? All this tells us is that there are places on earth with temperatures much higher and much lower than the average. Antarctica varies from -10 to -60 degrees C; Death Valley has a range from 17 degrees to 47 degrees C.

Oodnadatta has recorded maxima above 50 degrees C in the past and will do so again.

The purpose of all the convoluted “measurements” for the “global mean” is to try and identify some “trend” showing how our “carbon emissions” are leading the earth to fry.

There is no honesty about the accuracy of the measurements or any error margin, we are expected to believe and be horrified when someone pronounces 2016 was “hotter” than 2015 by 4 one hundredths of a degree C.

There is no doubt 2017 will be “hotter” than 2016. Records will be “smashed” again, by a few hundredths of a degree because if it were not so the “theory” would look a bit shaky.

The “climate change” juggernaut might be de-railed. “Scientists” will be looking in every nook and cranny to find some extra heat.

If all of this was treated as a curiosity rather than an all-out assault on mankind and guilt trip because we live in houses with glass in the windows it might be tolerable.

Unfortunately many people, some who should know better and some who are just plain thick, have accepted this “climate change” drama and we have suffered from ridiculous policies and acts of economic vandalism because we need “to save the planet” even though it might not need to be saved.

It is not so much that it has become boring and tedious, the issue is that it is taken so seriously and the steps undertaken to “reduce emissions” of a benign gas that is the source of all life on earth are stupid and impoverish us.

Here are two quotes from the Cosmologist Carl Sagan. I do not pretend that he was referring to “climate change” but they are worth considering:

“Arguments from authority carry little weight – authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.”

and:

“We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster”.

I still believe that 2+2 does equal 4.

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

### 68 Responses to David Bidstrup: What is 2 + 2? An old joke re-told.

1. stackja

fill in the blanks with “estimates”

So 2+2=5!

2. Craig

Too many trough snufflers dependent on gummimit funding to give this charade away. As a someone who has practised the scientific method, at least I can va,I date and replicate my results with integrity.

3. Nathan

I wonder if Carl Sagan would still believe in AGW if he was alive today?

4. cui bono

Great post but it’s a single white tissue amidst a blizzard of misinfo smothering the public.

5. Spring is near

My toaster is set to 2. If i cooked my toast twice, it looks more like a 5 toast.
Hence the global toast warming effect.

6. gbees

From Dr Roy Spencer

Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures

Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of fourteen instruments flying on different satellites over the years. A discussion of the latest version (6.0) of the dataset is located here.

The graph above represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month. Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

7. There is no honesty about the accuracy of the measurements or any error margin, …

Error margin alone puts the AGW scam in the rubbish bin.

ref: wuwt, jonova et many

8. gbees

The temperature on my driveway yesterday was 41C. I drove my car into my paddock. The temperature dropped to 32C. I drove down the road to the shops, 37C. I drove 20 mins away to the beach, 27C. One can see that position of land based measurement systems is critical for an accurate measurement of temperature. Apparently, it was the hottest December day in Penrith on record 43.4C (at 2:36pm). Note: this measurement station has only been in place for 20 years, so while it may have been the hottest recorded for that station (wherever it is located), I’m sure it wasn’t the hottest ever experienced by Penrith residents. The whole catastrophic anthropogenic global warming thingy is a fraud.

9. manalive

“Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature …”.

That quote from Wiki is a typical attempt to downplay the satellite data record; for that matter traditional thermometers also ‘do not measure temperature’ but the thermal expansion of a column of mercury or alcohol in a glass tube estimated by eye.
The satellite data measures practically the entire globe every day while the surface data even today is sparse (oceans are 70% of the Earth’s surface), not to mention historically, and is measured in mainly settled areas which have grown over time into large cities developing their own climate.
Dr Roy Spencer has a good summary here.

10. RobK

The hypothesis that CO2 is increasing the amount of radiant energy retained by the atmosphere cannot in my book be demonstrated by taking a max and min temp, adding them and dividing by two, then summing all the data points you have. It is meaningless in a vast chaotic system. Temperature as sensible heat is the product of many variables not able to be accounted for in modelling. There are so many fundamental problems with this endeavor to pin blame on CO2, it’s a circus act of illusions. It is not fit for, and should not be used as the basis of any policy decisions yet this is the sole purpose of the IPCC, a political body. The UN is using this ruse as a wealth distribution mechanism. Nothing more.

11. elhombre

No stackja, 2 + 2 does not equal 5, even for very large values of 2.

12. Rae

2 + 2 can be 22.

This “What would you like it to be?” meme (not really a joke) works better when applied to creative accountants and management consultants.

13. The impact of CAGW on science.

Never in the field of human conflict has so much damage been done to so many by so few.
— incoherent rambler

14. RobK

2+2=?
First you must make some assumptions or at least define the units.

15. gbees

In binary 2 + 2 = 0010 + 0010 = 0100

16. A Lurker

I still believe that 2+2 does equal 4.

What if a number ‘2’ self-identified as a ‘5’ or some other number? I mean, come on guys, we shouldn’t be applying Numeronormativity to poor oppressed numbers.

/sarc

17. GP

I wonder if Carl Sagan would still believe in AGW if he was alive today?

Yes, doubly so.

the Mathematician says “4”

There are mathematicians around who would give the third response.

18. Global Warming?
Who gives a shit?

19. Leo G

Satellites do not measure temperature

Nor do the “temperature” sensors in contempory automatic weather stations directly measure temperatures. Resistance Temperature Detectors (RTDs) measure changes in electrical resistance. They give an indication of temperature when properly calibrated and when not exposed to interference signals (eg infrared radiation).

20. gbees

PS: as an engineer I’d probably get 4.0000

21. Viva

Climate Change: the ultimate fake news.

22. RobK

Estimates of global temperature variations are one thing. Then estimating the anthropogenic contribution, specifically via some CO2 mechanism, is a stab in the dark.

23. RobK

These estimates, derived from estimates and projected a century ahead mean nothing.

24. Tel

Satellites do not measure temperature

Nothing measures temperature directly.

25. RobK

“PS: as an engineer I’d probably get 4.0000”

26. No stackja, 2 + 2 does not equal 5, even for very large values of 2.

My wife is of Irish descent and likes a good argument. For example she would say “2 + 2 = 5”. I would say “it used to be 4 when I went to school. She would say “it may be so but I am entitled to my opinion”.

27. Nathan

Reminds me of the poor statistician who drowned in the lake. His colleagues can’t work out how, it was only 1 inch deep on average.

28. 132andBush

Don’t know about Sagan but his self anointed successor is right on board with it. Neil de Grasse Tyson.

29. Rabz

expert

An utterly discredited appellation. If you don’t believe me, just think about some of the pompous dunderheaded wrongologists who refer to themselves by that term.

Political experts
Foreign policy experts
Public policy experts
Town planning experts
Accounting experts
Economists (enough said)

Simon Crapman, anyone?

Dim Flummery, perhaps?

Leavened with some ManBearPig?

30. Rabz

Sagan died in 1996 – I first became aware of the gerbil worming hoax in 1989.

Had he lived longer he would have inevitably been on board with it. I’m sort of glad he didn’t. I was a fan of Cosmos when growing up.

31. 132andBush

I was a fan of Cosmos when growing up.

Likewise.

The revamped version by de Grasse Tyson is a huge disappointment, just another way of pushing the barrow.

32. closeapproximation

This is a pretty sloppy piece. Cat needs to lift its quality of climate rationalism.

33. Tom

The insurance industry’s 2015 estimate — that the CAGW scam is now a \$US1.5 trillion artificial economy, the equivalent of Australia’s national economic production — is looking decidedly obsolete. Like all leftard scams that consume other people’s money, it’s booming, so there would be no change from \$US1.8 trillion in 2017. To put it another way, it’s a \$1.8 trillion tax on economic production that has been stolen to finance make-work schemes for unemployables.

34. gbees

RobK
#2585072, posted on December 15, 2017 at 8:24 am
“PS: as an engineer I’d probably get 4.0000”

And what do you think happens with 2’s when you give them to an engineer RobK?

We convert them to 2.0000’s

🙂

35. I admit I’m no scientist, just a dumb retired engineer trained in the days when the science we used was accepted as being man’s way of trying to predict how nature worked or how materials would cope with changing circumstances. We accepted that even with something as simple as applying a load to a bit of steel, we could get it wrong so we built in a “safety” or “fudge” factor that could vary dramatically, depending on what we knew, and what we knew we didn’t know, from 2 or 3 to 10 or 20.

Now, we are told to accept that we can measure natural events down to 2 or 3 decimal places and that is gospel! Yes, technology has advanced dramatically. but it still relies on a man’s (sorry, a person’s) interpretation of data derived from sources of highly variable accuracy and on how the millions of variables affect one outcome. Remember, every computer prediction relies on input from people, both in the form of data and in how that data is processed, to produce outcomes which can only be verified by observations using man-made devices. In addition, all the climate data is derived from weather observations, yet we are told we must believe that climate influences weather! Come on folks, isn’ t that, to be a bit blunt, all a— about k?

Can anybody enlighten me?

36. manalive
37. struth

My wife is of Irish descent and likes a good argument. For example she would say “2 + 2 = 5”. I would say “it used to be 4 when I went to school. She would say “it may be so but I am entitled to my opinion”.

John L is married to Notafan.

38. Bruce of Newcastle

Global temperature is hard to measure but snow cover has been measured by satellite since the late sixties. Snow is easy to spot and measure – just look at the white bits on a satellite photo.

Here is the northern hemisphere snow cover data compared to the average. Graph.

As you can see it has been basically average plus/minus some peaks and troughs since 1993.
No falling trend, which is what you’d get if the NASA GISS temperature graph was true.

So either the melting point of water has been rising at the same rate that world temperature is rising or the climateers’ temperature graph is fake.

Note that there isn’t a southern hemisphere equivalent since there isn’t much land in the SH. However Antarctic sea ice cover is pretty much average since the start of data in 1979. No trend.

This gives an excellent cross check of the climateers’ claims. Which from this data are obviously BS.

39. Bruce of Newcastle

Ok slight correction – you need to use the right wavelength to pick snow from clouds, but that is still far easier than measuring temperature remotely. I happen to think the AMSU instruments are doing an excellent job…not least because they fit the snow data whereas the other temperature datasets don’t.

40. Tim Neilson

Reminds me of the poor statistician who drowned in the lake. His colleagues can’t work out how, it was only 1 inch deep on average.

Three statisticians went duck shooting.

The first statistician shot, and missed – one foot too high.
The second statistician shot and missed – one foot too low.
The third statistician yelled out “got him!!!”

41. Stan

David, even your calculation of a single day’s average temp at a single location is dodgy. Taking the simple mean between the max and min temp is no way representative or scientific.

42. Bruce

@Rae
#2585045, posted on December 15, 2017 at 7:43 am

2 + 2 can be 22.

Paul Simon has a song:

43. Stan

Nothing measures temperature directly.

Indeed. Not even a thermometer.

44. Iggie

Here is an interesting example of a site (De Bilt in Holland) and how GISS has ‘homogenised’ its temp.
Here is the original data.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=633062600003&dt=1&ds=1

Here is the homogenised data.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=633062600000&dt=1&ds=5

It didn’t apply to all sites – but enough to show a rise in temps to demonstrate ‘the warming’.

45. bobby b

It’s 18F here.

And it’s snowing again.

Tell me again why I should worry about a degree of warming.

If I walk outside naked, I will die.

But no one ever mobilized the governments of the world to help save my life.

46. Brian

A long time ago a very senior climate scientist [Roger A Pielke Senior – who was a prominent member of the IPCC workgroups until he objected to the way the politics was rewriting the science] noted that temperature is not an additive measure. As others have noted – not only is an average of the max and min not the actual average during the day, but the average temperature between 2 different locations is physically meaningless.
He proposed that serious discussion of the heating of the earth had to measure heat content [which is additive] and not temperature. The major player in the earth’s heat budget is the oceans. They can hold enormous amounts of energy whereas the atmosphere can hold very little. So if there is any effect it is not a greenhouse effect, but a hot water bottle effect. The problem with the oceans is that they have enormous heat capacity. A lot of input energy would result in a scarcely measureable rise in the temperature. They also have an amazing tendency not to give back what they take in.
While he was not against the idea that CO2 could have a small effect on temperatures at any location, he was placing all his emphasis on local effects which were easily observable and of much more serious consequence. He noted that large scale land clearances [deforestation] had immediate and measurable effects on both temperature and rainfall. Does man change the climate – yes – but only locally. And at the local level we can actually do something about it. [The glaciers on Kilamanjaro are a classic example – snowfall fell off as the forests at its base were being removed – a local effect and nothing to do with any global temperature changes]
Does CO2 effect climate? – barely discernable [or as others are noting here – hidden in the noise] and we cannot do anything meaningful about it anyway.

47. Roger

In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. They make confident predictions about the future, and end up believing their own predictions. Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true…

Freeman Dyson, Professor of Physics, Princeton. RTWT

48. cynical1

Good post.

I still wonder how they can measure ocean rise to less than the average wind ruffle on the water’s
surface.

Another.

When they talk about “Urban heat affect” do they ever allow for the millions of km of black bitumen roads built around the tropics in the last hundred years?

If you average the driveway in my backyard, the temp is 48c today.

Lies, lies, statistics + cobbled together hypothesis = Billions squandered already.

Australia on 50% renewables?

Good luck.

49. marcus

Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.

50. When they talk about “Urban heat affect” do they ever allow for the millions of km of black bitumen roads built around the tropics in the last hundred years?

And terracotta roofs and concrete mass and city steel/glass/concrete towers and …

I’m still waiting for an engineer to do a heat balance on the total mass of black road and concrete and terracotta in a major city.

51. gbees

manalive
#2585125, posted on December 15, 2017 at 9:46 am
Ian Plimer with James Delingpole podcast is entertaining.

The Podcast the week prior with Kevin Myers was also extremely interesting and entertaining. I think Ireland is gone, like many of the other socialist Euro states.

52. Art Vandelay

Sagan died in 1996 – I first became aware of the gerbil worming hoax in 1989.

Had he lived longer he would have inevitably been on board with it.

Michael Crichton demolished Sagan’s extremely shonky and pseudo-scientific notion of nuclear winter:

Carl Sagan predicted on Nightline that Kuwaiti oil fires would produce a nuclear winter effect, causing a “year without a summer,” and endangering crops around the world. Sagan stressed this outcome was so likely that “it should affect the war plans.” None of it happened.

What, then, can we say were the lessons of Nuclear Winter? I believe the lesson was that with a catchy name, a strong policy position and an aggressive media campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak thesis will be established as fact.

As he notes, there are plenty of parallels with climate science.

53. Mother Lode

Well, I have been keeping my own records and what I have discovered is alarming.

In fact, just within my data set I have found, in raw data, a 10 degree increase in temperature.

I have been keeping temperature records all morning in fact. Just between 5:00 am and 1:00 pm there has been a steady and undeniable increase.

And when I adjust the data it just gets worse. When I add the time (using a 24 hour clock) it is an 18 degree increase.

Since publishing my results I have received requests for interviews from the ABC, the SMH, the NY Times and Entertainment Weekly.

And Al Gore has said he would love to include me in his new movie An Inconceivable Truth – the CO2 Awakens. He said he would come out to meet me, and was wondering where he could get a decent deep fried steak.

54. Mother Lode

I am pretty sure that in Bingology 2+2 represents two ducks swimming.

Probably starving because of the retreat of the ice sheets. If we also consider that a 6 looks like air circling into a cyclone, a 7 looks like a cliff, and 8 is both infinity rotated through 90 degrees (adjusted) and also the shape of a Minoan shield, well I think I need hardly say that things look pretty dire.

Also consider that 3 looks like a buxom woman’s cleavage from above, and 11 of course is legs-11, then the number 113 looks like a woman who has been dismembered.

Why doesn’t the government tax us more! It is our only hope!

55. Arnost

The Engineer says “somewhere between 3.9 and 4.1”, the Mathematician says “4”

The mathematician would get 4… An engineer however would get 4.0000… [a research scientist would get the 4 +/- 0.1].

56. Arnost

A surrealist (od course) will tell you that 2 + 2 = Fish

57. Arnost

isn’t that od? Od is odd of course!

58. Arnost

Of course… if you have n=3.9999* (repeating), then:

if you multiply both sides by 10, you have 10n=39.9999*
if you subtract n from both sides, you have 9n=36
therefore n = 4.

59. Cynic of Ayr

Regarding the text:
“Looking at 2 places in South Australia for 12 December, using BOM data, Oodnadatta had an average for the day of 34.15, ((46.7+21.6)/2). Kingscote had an average of 21.2, ((33.8+8.6)/2).”
This causes one to envisage that for half the time it was one temperature, and for the other half it was the other temperature.
But consider, (simplistically) say the temperature was at the 46 level for, say, 20 hours, and the 21 level was for, say, four hours, is it fair to say the average was 34?
In a simplistic version where the temperature was indeed 46 for 20 hours, then suddenly fell to 21 for four hours, what would the real average be? Would it be different?
Consider a different situation, (as I suspect always happens with those thermometers situated near highways) it’s 46 for one minute of the day when a single car drove past, but hovers at 21 basically all night – or even a few hours.
Is it fair or accurate to say the average is one added to the other and halved?
I don’t think so.

60. cohenite

10 reasons why alarmism is bullshit:

1 CO2 radiation cannot heat the oceans
2 The optical depth of the atmosphere has not increased. The OD is the number of times radiation leaving the surface is absorbed and reemitted by the atmosphere greenhouse gases. If extra CO2 was heating the atmosphere the OD would have increased.
3 The real measure of whether the world is warming is the Energy Balance. If CO2 was trapping heat the EB would be positive; it isn’t.
4 Heat is not being trapped on Earth. Outgoing Longwave Radiation has increased. The heat has left the planet.
5 (A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4
6 The Sun is responsible for temperature trends during the 20thC
7 Cloud cover can explain recent temperature trends
9 Temperature measurement has been contaminated
10 The climate models are wrong.

61. Rafe

Mother Lode your figures are meaningless until they are homogenised.

Bloody amateur. Go and get a PhD and Government funding and do the job properly!

62. don coyote

What is temperature?
As I understand, it is a measure of the motion of “atomic particles” that constitute matter. Obviously any direct measurement has to be calibrated with our human macroscopic temperature scales.
I would have thought that measurement of radiation from these particles would be about as direct a measurement as possible. Is this so?

63. Damienski

Everyone knows that the answer is 42

64. David Bidstrup

The definition of “average” might not be strictly correct but unless there is a continuous set of recordings – say one every hour that can be “averaged” over a day it is probably fair to say that the max plus the min divided by 2 is the “average” temperature, close enough. It really is a pointless exercise because it just tells us that around half the day was “hotter” and half “colder”. Same applies to “global mean/average or whatever” temperature.

65. JohnA

stackja #2585020, posted on December 15, 2017, at 6:21 am

fill in the blanks with “estimates”

So 2+2=5!

Sorry that answer, as submitted, must be marked incorrect. 5 factorial is a lot bigger.

However, it is the season for realising WHY 2+2=4.

The answer to that (entirely different) question is that God made the Creation so that it would not burst apart when its Creator entered it as a human being.

66. Kneel

“…is probably fair to say that the max plus the min divided by 2 is the “average” temperature, close enough.”

Sigh.
Not even close.

The average voltage between the active and neutral leads on your power points is 0 – I still recommend you pay attention to the peaks and troughs though, because they can kill you.

Methods also matter – start and stop times (cherry picking), mean vs median and so on. It may be a coincidence that satellite photos of the arctic that show ice coverage were launched at what was a cold “maximum” and that we have seen a reduction in sea ice since that time, but failing to point out this fact is a lie by omission.

Averages can give you hints about how things work, but the real knowledge comes from studying the residuals (differences, or outliers, if you like).

But ignoring that, you are measuring sensible heat and ignoring latent heat – in a system where water continually cycles between solid, liquid and gas. This water is of the order of 100 to 10,000 times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2. Changing 1 litre of water from liquid to gas at the same temperature requires enough heat to raise the temperature of 1 litre of water 7C.

Consider a tropical island versus an inland desert at the same latitude – the island will rarely see temps above about 35C or below about 10C. The desert will easily see 45C highs and sub zero lows.
Because water.
Check BoM data – dry years are hot years in Australia, the drier the hotter.
Because water.

Skin effects matter too – see Pielke Snr on weather station data at various heights, same location. Even shows difference in trends between 2m & 50m height!

Adding sea surface temps into near surface air temps to get global average is beyond wrong, it’s insane – there can and usually is a highly variable difference between sea surface temp and the temp of the air 2m above the sea surface.

Advection (wind), convection and precipitation mechanically move heat (sensible and latent) vertically and horizontally with considerably greater efficiency and speed than radiation.

A 1% change in albedo due to cloud changes would be more than sufficient to explain even the adjusted temperature data. We don’t have enough data on cloud cover to know the changes (if any) to it to within even 10% for the last 100 years.

67. David Bidstrup

We don’t have enough “data” for anything.
Those who want to prolong the agony will find all sorts of “arguments”. We just need to stop allowing the vested interests to promulgate BS and go away.
This has become boring and tedious and the damage done to our economy is huge.