#3 global temperature fallacy - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

A virtual debate with Jim Steele based on his interview at Heartland Institute:  

Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | January 27, 2015

Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett (for the National Center for Policy Analysis) interviews Jim Steele, ecologist, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada field campus of San Francisco State University

______________________________________________ 

Steele:  "And we trust the scientific theory because it been fairly tested by others - the theory must out perform all alternate explanations, eliminate confounding factors plus lively debate.  But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public. ... and any attempt to prevent that debate, in our schools, in the media, in peer reviewed science, it's only denigrating the scientific process.  ... And I think those public debates would help create real climate literacy …"

Well then Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.  I will accept these responses from your Heartland Institute podcast as your opening round.  I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions.  I agree to post your thoughtful responses unaltered.

In this post I'm going back to the beginning of what will be a long journey.  (Gotta hand it to you Jim, you know how to pack in a lot of talk into a short period of time.)  The Heartland audio track doesn't have a time signature so I can't offer the start point.  Basically this continues where part one ended.

In this third installment I'll be debating your claim that "global average temperature is a totally meaningless concept" and your claim that scientists are leaving information out of their studies, where I demonstrate that you are... how shall we say, misrepresenting the truth.

______________________________________

Steele:  So I know changes in the eco-system can't be reduced to simple changes like CO2, 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
No educated person says they can be reduced to simple changes like CO2, lots of interactions going on, or as I like to say: folds within folds of harmonic cumulative complexity flowing down the stream of time.   ;- )
______________________________

Steele:  and an ecologist knows also that a global average temperature is totally meaningless.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
That's not true.

Think about the concept of our "global heat and moisture distribution engine" to appreciate what our climate is all about.  That system is composed of ocean, atmosphere, cryosphere and land mass, it possesses a real amount of heat.

Arriving at that number is exceedingly difficult and it requires various teams working independently and in cooperation to establish that number.  The number may not be absolutely perfect, but the thing it's trying to measure most certainly is a very real thing - and it's an important indicator of our planet's energy state, even if we don't fully understand it or it's implications.
______________________________

Steele:  You have to examine the local change.It might be wise to say globally, but all organisms act locally, always. And the changes in local micro-climates are by far more critical measurements.