>>11730475>1. Physics? What does the average human body temperature of everyone in California mean, physically?
There is an average human body temperature of 98.6 F. If the average in California is significantly higher than this indicates a significant amount of people in California have fevers. This isn't even analogous to what we're discussing since bodies don't make up one area, but it still makes sense. I don't understand why you think physics has any problem taking the average of temperatures. Can you make an actual argument instead of just saying it can't?>2. So you seem to appreciate that more samples increases accuracy, but won't acknowledge why or what that means regarding spatial averaging.
I said from the start that the spatial coverage is sufficient to get a representative average. I showed you the uncertainty intervals. Please explain why you think it's not sufficient. >3. See 2
2 does not show how the algorithms are arbitrary or how the spacial coverage is insufficient. >https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018246
Did you actually check to see if their global averages are different from the temperature station record? Because the satellite record is practically the same. Why do you think multiple methods showing the same result throws doubt on one method?>4. Entropy doesn't cause temperature to increase, it causes spatial deviations from your generalized statement that temperature is the flux of energy, which it isn't.
What spacial deviations? Either energy is in the atmosphere or it isn't. If entropy doesn't cause temperature to increase then it fails to explain how global temperature can increase without energy flux increasing. You're still being very vague, which tells me you have no clue what you're talking about.>Now measure temperature at various places at various times. What's the temperature of the water?
It is whatever you measured it is at a certain time. What is your point?