So how is the global average temperature of the atmosphere determined without taking the temperature at the moment at a particular place, albeit every place (hypothetically)?
i'm still a skeptic as in my experience 40 or so yrs ago it was called a hole in the ozone layer, millions made selling sunscreen lotion, then a name change to global warming and now its climate change, billions being made out of renewable energy?
What will the next name change be?
A number of methods - one is by always taking the temperature at the same number of numerous places and averaging them. Another is measurement from satellites at numerous places.
If the globe warms then obviously the climate has changed - the public finds some terms easier to understand, and less of a mouthful, but it is Global Anthropogenic Climate Change (which most people would agree is a pain in the arse to keep repeating in full).
I'm unclear why you mention the hole in the ozone layer and renewable energy in the same breath as climate change. The hole in the ozone layer and climate change are different and quite unrelated things (the only connection I can see is that they seem to upset people because they are potential health-damaging things that require some action to remedy, and people dislike change). Renewable energy is just one of many ways in which we can produce power (like nuclear, oil, gas and coal). Don't you think billions are being made selling you coal-generated power as well? Renewable energy has long been known but it came into the news because it is one (just one) way in which climate change might be reduced, but its economics is now better than other methods of power generation in the main, and it does have other useful side effects like reducing other forms of airborne pollution (which give Chinese, Indians and some other nations shorter life-spans than ours). So linking it to climate change is now a bit tenuous since it is a stand-alone economic means of power production (however I don't think we can dispense with the other methods overnight because we have already made the investment in them, and because until we have adequate battery storage systems there are still times when they must be supplemented when there is a shortage of wind and sunlight). There are other issues as well, some positive some negative). Each renewable power station seems to be smaller (so you need a lot), however having a lot has strategic advantages because it is harder for a hostile power to knock out a country's power (eg France and Japan could have most of their power knocked out by attacks on just a few sites because they depend on a limited numer of nuclear reactors - since nuclear reactors each produce so much more power).
We don't like change but it has always occurred, and successful nations simply adapt as required. Adoption of oil made the USA and Britain powerful nations, nuclear did similar to the USA and Russia (whether we like it or not). And of course if you don't want to use sunscreen lotion, no one is forcing you to do that.....
i'm still a skeptic as in my experience 40 or so yrs ago it was called a hole in the ozone layer, millions made selling sunscreen lotion, then a name change to global warming and now its climate change, billions being made out of renewable energy?
What will the next name change be?
A number of methods - one is by always taking the temperature at the same number of numerous places and averaging them. Another is measurement from satellites at numerous places.
If the globe warms then obviously the climate has changed - the public finds some terms easier to understand, and less of a mouthful, but it is Global Anthropogenic Climate Change (which most people would agree is a pain in the arse to keep repeating in full).
I'm unclear why you mention the hole in the ozone layer and renewable energy in the same breath as climate change. The hole in the ozone layer and climate change are different and quite unrelated things (the only connection I can see is that they seem to upset people because they are potential health-damaging things that require some action to remedy, and people dislike change). Renewable energy is just one of many ways in which we can produce power (like nuclear, oil, gas and coal). Don't you think billions are being made selling you coal-generated power as well? Renewable energy has long been known but it came into the news because it is one (just one) way in which climate change might be reduced, but its economics is now better than other methods of power generation in the main, and it does have other useful side effects like reducing other forms of airborne pollution (which give Chinese, Indians and some other nations shorter life-spans than ours). So linking it to climate change is now a bit tenuous since it is a stand-alone economic means of power production (however I don't think we can dispense with the other methods overnight because we have already made the investment in them, and because until we have adequate battery storage systems there are still times when they must be supplemented when there is a shortage of wind and sunlight). There are other issues as well, some positive some negative). Each renewable power station seems to be smaller (so you need a lot), however having a lot has strategic advantages because it is harder for a hostile power to knock out a country's power (eg France and Japan could have most of their power knocked out by attacks on just a few sites because they depend on a limited numer of nuclear reactors - since nuclear reactors each produce so much more power).
We don't like change but it has always occurred, and successful nations simply adapt as required. Adoption of oil made the USA and Britain powerful nations, nuclear did similar to the USA and Russia (whether we like it or not). And of course if you don't want to use sunscreen lotion, no one is forcing you to do that.....
