Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[oxmixmudd]

J. T. Hayward, "Probabilities and Wildcats Tested Through Mathematical Manipulation," Oil and Gas Journal, Vol 33, No. 26, Nov 15, 1934, pp 129-131

" Furthermore, we must be ever on the watch for that most insidious and widespread superstition that assumes that mathematical manipulation, if sufficiently accurate, involved, and prolonged, can transmute doubtful data into positive, scientific fact

© source where applicable

I suppose this is going to boil down to a debate over what constitutes bad data in this case. If you have data with a known bias, it is still good data, it can still be used. (for example, a thermometer whose deviation from true is known). Even data with a good deal of noise in it is usable if you have enough samples of the same event. In that case any individual data point may well be useless, but a large number of samples is quite useful when they are averaged. It is very possible to mathematically massage data of this type and get very good answers. Why even really bad data can still give better answers after processing IF we can characterize the corruption process. Remember when hubble was first launched and hadn't gotten its 'glasses'? We knew exactly what was wrong, and although it could not be used for deep space work due to its reduced sensitivity, after processing the pictures it yielded where still better than any ground based telescopes at the time could produce.

So is the climate data data which lends itself to the accurate removal of bias? While I certainly will not argue a single thermometer placed at or near an AC unit is good data, I can't dismiss the entire conclusion of Global warming based on the fact some thermometers are improperly placed. The heat island effect (which would indeed tend to partially be a results of thermometers placed too near a heat source) is a localized effect. If all urban centers are removed from the global temperature average, a good idea of its contribution can be made. If when we remove urban centers from the average temperature calculation we suddenly lose our warming trend, then we'd have a very good case it's the result of bad measurement.

Surely someone, somewhere has done this already? (actually, unless it's been done, there would be no good way to characterize the heat island effect, so I assume it has been)

Certainly the CO2 data we've discussed I would consider data that is good data in spite of the random spikes we see. Because they are primarily random noise and fairly easy to identify as such for a variety of reasons.

Jim

[FLovell]

Oh, I do already get that, for a model to be a good one, to reflect reality well, one needs high-quality data. If you model using bad data, then you have to be extremely lucky for the model to come out OK.

Garbage data into a garbage model = garbage output (for sure).

Garbage data into a good model = garbage output (for sure).

Good data into a garbage model = garbage output (for sure).

Good data into a good model = good output (maybe).

Yo Shadowmaster -- correct me if I left something out or got something wrong, THANKS!

-- Frank

[Augustine2004]

I guess Frank Lovell put it better than I did, though a modeler might get very lucky.

[oxmixmudd]

Garbage data into a garbage model = garbage output (for sure).

Garbage data into a good model = garbage output (for sure).

Good data into a garbage model = garbage output (for sure).

Good data into a good model = good output (maybe).

Yo Shadowmaster -- correct me if I left something out or got something wrong, THANKS!

-- Frank

So, not to disagree, but when would you expect not to get good results from a good model fed good data. Would that not mean it was not a good model? Or are you allowing for the fact there are always real world caveats that simply can't be modeled well (like non-linear dynamics etc).

If so, that just resolve to a fine grained definition of what is a good model.

Jim

[FLovell]

So, not to disagree, but when would you expect not to get good results from a good model fed good data. Would that not mean it was not a good model? Or are you allowing for the fact there are always real world caveats that simply can't be modeled well (like non-linear dynamics etc).

If so, that just resolve to a fine grained definition of what is a good model.

Jim

It is not that I expect NOT to get good results from good data input into a good model, Jim; rather, it is that it is still possible that one nonetheless might not get good results, and neither I nor any reader should forget that non-zero possibility.

My training and experience in science taught me that (some degree of) uncertainty will be with us always. My studies in the philosophy of science has taught me that even objective knowledge is forever fallible to one degree or another, indeed so even are facts -- not even a fact should ever be regarded as certainly, infallible true.

And from my experiences first as a religious person, then as an atheist, then as an atheist who engages theists in public discussions (or tries to -- many don't wish to really discuss, just pontificate), I learned what terrible things dogmas (things accepted without question to be forever and absolutely true) can be -- religious dogmas, scientific dogmas -- so I try very, very diligently to not let my bead fall off the wire.

And so I often tack-on a possible "(maybe)" in parentheses to show my statement is made as a play-safe conditional, a hedge against dogma that shouldn't be and is never really necessary.

A close friend of mine (who initially was my first professor of physics) said this to me years ago: "I have never found a downside of approaching certainty closely without ever letting myself actually reach certainty, nor have I ever observed anyone else to find an upside of reaching certainty; when you approach certainty closely without reaching it you live and make decisions exactly as you would if you had reached certainty, you bear no burden of demonstration and you do not run the risk of getting egg on your face or having to apologizing the way one who reaches certainty runs that risk." That made GREAT sense to me, and so I adopted it as my epistemological modus operandi -- I am a Popperian fallibilist (I attest to that with the book I am holding in my avatar photo), and I have yet to find the downside to being one nor yet had to apologize for egg on my face.

All that usually doesn't make a lick o' good sense to most people whom I tell about it, so if that the case with you, Jim, that will surprise me but you will be in abundant company!

-- Frank

PS: If anyone would like a .pdf copy of British Astronomer R.A. Lyttleton's essay, "The Nature of Knowledge," wherein he explains (among other things) the "keep your bead on the wire" metaphor that is central to modern scientific epistemology, send me your "Off-List" email address in private message or "Off-List" email and I will attach the essay to return email.

[Challenger Grim]

It is not that I expect NOT to get good results from good data input into a good model, Jim; rather, it is that it is still possible that one nonetheless might not get good results, and neither I nor any reader should forget that non-zero possibility.

My training and experience in science taught me that (some degree of) uncertainty will be with us always. My studies in the philosophy of science has taught me that even objective knowledge is forever fallible to one degree or another, indeed so even are facts -- not even a fact should ever be regarded as certainly, infallible true.

And from my experiences first as a religious person, then as an atheist, then as an atheist who engages theists in public discussions (or tries to -- many don't wish to really discuss, just pontificate), I learned what terrible things dogmas (things accepted without question to be forever and absolutely true) can be -- religious dogmas, scientific dogmas -- so I try very, very diligently to not let my bead fall off the wire.

And so I often tack-on a possible "(maybe)" in parentheses to show my statement is made as a play-safe conditional, a hedge against dogma that shouldn't be and is never really necessary.

A close friend of mine (who initially was my first professor of physics) said this to me years ago: "I have never found a downside of approaching certainty closely without ever letting myself actually reach certainty, nor have I ever observed anyone else to find an upside of reaching certainty; when you approach certainty closely without reaching it you live and make decisions exactly as you would if you had reached certainty, you bear no burden of demonstration and you do not run the risk of getting egg on your face or having to apologizing the way one who reaches certainty runs that risk." That made GREAT sense to me, and so I adopted it as my epistemological modus operandi -- I am a Popperian fallibilist (I attest to that with the book I am holding in my avatar photo), and I have yet to find the downside to being one nor yet had to apologize for egg on my face.

All that usually doesn't make a lick o' good sense to most people whom I tell about it, so if that the case with you, Jim, that will surprise me but you will be in abundant company!

-- Frank

PS: If anyone would like a .pdf copy of British Astronomer R.A. Lyttleton's essay, "The Nature of Knowledge," wherein he explains (among other things) the "keep your bead on the wire" metaphor that is central to modern scientific epistemology, send me your "Off-List" email address in private message or "Off-List" email and I will attach the essay to return email.

Frank, you might like to participate in this discussion.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3366

[SedRocks]

FWIW, from USA Today at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...e-change_N.htm, the National Climatic Data Center has just reported that 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record with respect to global surface temperature. "Nine of the Earth's 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and all 12 of the warmest years have occurred since 1997."

"It was also the wettest year on record globally as measured by average precipitation..... [the] average temperature in 2010, as in 2005, was 58.12 degrees, which is 1.12 degrees above the 20th-century average of 57 degrees. It was the 34th consecutive year that the global temperature was above average ...... The last below-average year was 1976. ..........The climate center reports that the global land surface temperatures for 2010 were the warmest on record, at 1.80 degrees above the 20th-century average. The global ocean surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third-warmest on record, at 0.88 degrees above the 20th-century average..........In a separate global temperature report released last week, 2010 finished in a tie with 1998 for the warmest year in the 32-year satellite temperature record, according to John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). Unlike the climate center's surface-based temperatures, UAH's data are based on instruments aboard satellites from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about 5 miles above sea level. The satellite data show that the globe continues to warm unevenly. Warming increases as you go north: The Arctic Ocean has warmed an average of almost 3 degrees in the past 32 years. Another global surface temperature report released Wednesday — from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York — said 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest year."

[FLovell]

FWIW, from USA Today at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...e-change_N.htm, the National Climatic Data Center has just reported that 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record with respect to global surface temperature. "Nine of the Earth's 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and all 12 of the warmest years have occurred since 1997."

"It was also the wettest year on record globally as measured by average precipitation..... [the] average temperature in 2010, as in 2005, was 58.12 degrees, which is 1.12 degrees above the 20th-century average of 57 degrees. It was the 34th consecutive year that the global temperature was above average ...... The last below-average year was 1976. ..........The climate center reports that the global land surface temperatures for 2010 were the warmest on record, at 1.80 degrees above the 20th-century average. The global ocean surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third-warmest on record, at 0.88 degrees above the 20th-century average..........In a separate global temperature report released last week, 2010 finished in a tie with 1998 for the warmest year in the 32-year satellite temperature record, according to John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). Unlike the climate center's surface-based temperatures, UAH's data are based on instruments aboard satellites from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about 5 miles above sea level. The satellite data show that the globe continues to warm unevenly. Warming increases as you go north: The Arctic Ocean has warmed an average of almost 3 degrees in the past 32 years. Another global surface temperature report released Wednesday — from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York — said 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest year."

Very interesting, SED! That may be disturbing to any skeptics of global warming or global climate change -- but it is not disturbing to me, heck I'm a global climate change inevitablist!

[FLovell]

Frank, you might like to participate in this discussion.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3366

THANKS for the tip, Challenger -- I dunno whether or not I'll participate yet, but I have bookmarked it for perusal at my leisure soon and I will follow that dialogue with interest, THANKS!!

-- Frank

[oxmixmudd]

It is not that I expect NOT to get good results from good data input into a good model, Jim; rather, it is that it is still possible that one nonetheless might not get good results, and neither I nor any reader should forget that non-zero possibility.

My training and experience in science taught me that (some degree of) uncertainty will be with us always. My studies in the philosophy of science has taught me that even objective knowledge is forever fallible to one degree or another, indeed so even are facts -- not even a fact should ever be regarded as certainly, infallible true.

And from my experiences first as a religious person, then as an atheist, then as an atheist who engages theists in public discussions (or tries to -- many don't wish to really discuss, just pontificate), I learned what terrible things dogmas (things accepted without question to be forever and absolutely true) can be -- religious dogmas, scientific dogmas -- so I try very, very diligently to not let my bead fall off the wire.

And so I often tack-on a possible "(maybe)" in parentheses to show my statement is made as a play-safe conditional, a hedge against dogma that shouldn't be and is never really necessary.

A close friend of mine (who initially was my first professor of physics) said this to me years ago: "I have never found a downside of approaching certainty closely without ever letting myself actually reach certainty, nor have I ever observed anyone else to find an upside of reaching certainty; when you approach certainty closely without reaching it you live and make decisions exactly as you would if you had reached certainty, you bear no burden of demonstration and you do not run the risk of getting egg on your face or having to apologizing the way one who reaches certainty runs that risk." That made GREAT sense to me, and so I adopted it as my epistemological modus operandi -- I am a Popperian fallibilist (I attest to that with the book I am holding in my avatar photo), and I have yet to find the downside to being one nor yet had to apologize for egg on my face.

All that usually doesn't make a lick o' good sense to most people whom I tell about it, so if that the case with you, Jim, that will surprise me but you will be in abundant company!

-- Frank

PS: If anyone would like a .pdf copy of British Astronomer R.A. Lyttleton's essay, "The Nature of Knowledge," wherein he explains (among other things) the "keep your bead on the wire" metaphor that is central to modern scientific epistemology, send me your "Off-List" email address in private message or "Off-List" email and I will attach the essay to return email.

Oh that makes sense to me Frank. Although I've never formalized the concept as you mention it above, I am quite sure I nevertheless live by it. I am for the most part always willing to think seriously about a serious challenge to a position I hold as almost certainly true.Though I am not afraid to act on or live by what I believe to be true with as much certainty as is possible leaving that door open

Jim

[Augustine2004]

Alan Caruba wrote, 'England is passing through the worst winter in the last hundred years of recorded history. Its heavy investment in clean energy, specifically wind turbines, has turned out to be a bad idea since they tend not to turn much when the weather turns cold. Having shut down most of its coal mines, England is experiencing a lack of electrical power that is killing some folks.' Wow, how much good you Chicken Littles are doing! Keep it up!

[grmorton]

FWIW, from USA Today at http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...e-change_N.htm, the National Climatic Data Center has just reported that 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record with respect to global surface temperature. "Nine of the Earth's 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and all 12 of the warmest years have occurred since 1997."

"It was also the wettest year on record globally as measured by average precipitation..... [the] average temperature in 2010, as in 2005, was 58.12 degrees, which is 1.12 degrees above the 20th-century average of 57 degrees. It was the 34th consecutive year that the global temperature was above average ...... The last below-average year was 1976. ..........The climate center reports that the global land surface temperatures for 2010 were the warmest on record, at 1.80 degrees above the 20th-century average. The global ocean surface temperature for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third-warmest on record, at 0.88 degrees above the 20th-century average..........In a separate global temperature report released last week, 2010 finished in a tie with 1998 for the warmest year in the 32-year satellite temperature record, according to John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). Unlike the climate center's surface-based temperatures, UAH's data are based on instruments aboard satellites from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about 5 miles above sea level. The satellite data show that the globe continues to warm unevenly. Warming increases as you go north: The Arctic Ocean has warmed an average of almost 3 degrees in the past 32 years. Another global surface temperature report released Wednesday — from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York — said 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest year."

I was interested in that comment that it was the wettest year on record. Water vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2, and it too has been increasing, but without the pickets, demonstrations and demand for tax dollar transfers to corrupt 3rd world countries. Below is a picture of the time series of water vapor increases. Wonder what part of the heat is due to water vapor increases rather than CO2?

[FLovell]

Oh that makes sense to me Frank. Although I've never formalized the concept as you mention it above, I am quite sure I nevertheless live by it. I am for the most part always willing to think seriously about a serious challenge to a position I hold as almost certainly true.Though I am not afraid to act on or live by what I believe to be true with as much certainty as is possible leaving that door open

Jim

Well, that harmonizes with what I'd gathered about you by osmosis from our dialogues here, I do think your cognitive modus operandi and mine are very similar (which doesn't mean we come to the same conclusions, heck, we've greatly different personal experiences -- but it suggests that given the same set of objective data we'd not likely come to very different conclusions.

The way I put the essence of your last sentence (as it applies to me) is this: although I do not claim to know anything to be certainly true, I do claim to know a few things to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

Anyhow, PEACE! -- Frank

[grmorton]

I did a bit more research on water vapor in the atmosphere and it seems to correlate quite nicely with the satellite temperature. the upper part of the picture below is the satellite data. I stretched it so temporally match the water vapor time frame. Water vapor, the strongest greenhouse gas is causing the world to warm, and that would in turn cause the oceans to degas CO2 and that would explain why CO2 lags temperature.

Notice the absolutely fantastic fit with the hot years of the late 1990s.

[ramses]

I did a bit more research on water vapor in the atmosphere and it seems to correlate quite nicely with the satellite temperature. the upper part of the picture below is the satellite data. I stretched it so temporally match the water vapor time frame. Water vapor, the strongest greenhouse gas is causing the world to warm, and that would in turn cause the oceans to degas CO2 and that would explain why CO2 lags temperature.

Notice the absolutely fantastic fit with the hot years of the late 1990s.

What you have discovered here (apart from your rather strange conclusion that CO2 is lagging temp, we are after all talking about the recent warming, right?) is the well known water vapour feedback.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/268.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ck-or-forcing/
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler09.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1014171146.htm