This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
I really think you may be onto something here Brad.
I am assured however by people in the know in the skeptical community with direct access to experts in the field of Climate Science that Enthalpy isn't an issue.
They are nice about it, but...
Do you really think that the UN fools will know the difference?
They do not know what water(H2O) is!!!
Cancun COP16 attendees fall for the old “dihydrogen monoxide” petition as well as signing up to cripple the U.S. Economy.
Yeah, they signed up to ban water, you’d think some of these folks would be have enough science background (from their work in complex climate issues) to realize what they are signing, but sadly, no.
I've always thought that the biggest problem with the global average temperature is that it's supposed to be the average sea and land temperature, but nobody really seriously bothers to measure the land temperature. Instead they measure the air temperature, actually the shaded air temperature, about a metre or two off the ground. Shaded air temperature is probably a good measure for representing 'the weather', but the temperature of the various ground surfaces below could be completely different. So to me the idea of bringing in enthalpy, which is like a combination of air temperature and humidity in a single parameter, is not really relevant.
To give a quick appreciation of what I'm talking about, this webpage gives an example of some weatherman discussing the issue. He's in Greenland and the shaded air temperature is 20 deg F but the dial thermometer behind his head is reading 80 deg F.
I first noticed this issue about twenty years ago when I had a job working out the 'design hazard parameters' for a nuclear facility in the UK. The procedure for working out the maximum and minimum temperature was to use Met Office data for the nearest weather station location (which might only be a few decades of data) and then massively extrapolate to a 10 thousand year return period. This would give a result like 35 deg C to -20 deg C. When it came to a civil engineer using these figures they would ignore the 35 deg C figure because they used a more conservative design code value (BS5950) for outdoor steelwork, 50 deg C, and they might possibly select a higher grade of steel than normal to handle the -20 deg C low temperature figure.
Now the BS5950 value is probably taking account of the temperature of the steel being in direct sunlight and might be rounded to the nearest 10 deg C. There is a folklore that (even in the UK) on a really hot day you can fry an egg on a metal surface, and that would correspond to a temperature of at least 150 deg F or 65 deg C. The point I'm making is that the temperature of a surface could be completely different to the shaded air temperature, and the temperatures of these surfaces contribute to the Earth's 'thermal radiation budget' or whatever it's called.
Now when it comes to the temperature of the sea, the sea temperature itself actually is measured, not some shaded air temperature above it. It used to be measured (up to about 50 years ago) by hauling in samples of sea water using buckets thrown over the side of a ship, and then they switched to the more 'professional' approach of obtaining temperature data from readings available for the sea water cooling intake temperature for the ships' engines. Both these methods of measuring sea temperature suffer from the problem that they may be measuring temperature quite a few metres below the surface rather than as close to the surface as possible. More recently, I think in the last ten years, the idea of measuring temperature very close to the sea surface using buoys has been introduced.