Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

2017's global temperatures

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    None taken - in fact this is part of the point I've been making overall. There is a lot of political baggage - on both sides. But ultimately, if you (general) want someone to change their mind about something, you have to meet them where they are, not where you want them to be.
    At the same time, can you see where using phrasing that is a) based on false premises; and b) sounds dismissive; would seem to indicate you don't want to be met, no matter where you are?

    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    There are things that bother me (weighting a mean - and using a mean) but I'm not trying to debate them, just understand the picture.
    What exactly about means bothers you? Is there another measurement you'd think is more appropriate?
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      At the same time, can you see where using phrasing that is a) based on false premises; and b) sounds dismissive; would seem to indicate you don't want to be met, no matter where you are?
      Sure - but remember, you can quickly over read if you concentrate only on the phrasing you find irritating - and thereby miss opportunities.

      Come down to your own intent - do you want to change minds or do you want to re-affirm with those of like mind? Individually, either is a perfectly fine choice - but as a political movement, the former is the only valid choice. Political winds change - and if this thing is real and really possible to be affected by human activity, then the movement is highly vulnerable politically and I doubt most proponents realize it.



      What exactly about means bothers you? Is there another measurement you'd think is more appropriate?
      My stats prof taught us to avoid it like the plague - maybe not that much, but to be very aware of how easily skewed a mean is. Averaging measurements across the globe - but with collection issues (locations) on top of it? If i were having similar issues in a survey study, I'd never even consider a mean - the chances of it being skewed are even higher.

      I understand weighting - and again, my research background makes me leery of it. It has a place - there are perfectly valid reasons to use it - BUT it's also a really easy way to muck up your (general) own research. Professionally, I've seen it abused to the point of absurdity (it's literally unwise to rely on Ryan White data as a direct result of the insane levels of simple misuse of weighting) so it automatically raises a yellow flag - and in my opinion, it's scary how few researchers seem to look critically at it.

      "Weighted mean' sounds like 'accident waiting to happen'. And it should - because the first thing that we (general) should look at is methodology - and make darn sure that the study actually measures what it thinks it does - sometimes we get stuck having to use analysis we'd rather not and needing to weight - but no conclusion should be accepted if the methodology hasn't been scrutinized. Don't assume it's wrong because it raises a yellow flag - don't assume it's right because it doesn't raise a red one.

      Median is normally preferable to mean but I did understand that it wasn't considered valid due to the same skewing issue (locations). Which brings up another question - why a mean/median/mode analysis for the entire globe at all?

      Honestly it makes me question what's with the obsession with a single analysis? Using a single reference for an entire globe sounds kinda weird, really - why amalgamate that way when a compilation approach should reasonably produce the same indications over time? There really have got to be better analysis' than 'let's average global temps and throw in some highly educated guesswork'. This looks political to me - because pollsters do the exact same thing (it's media, not research, driven) - but maybe it's just for convenience? Maybe there's a really good reason - but if so, my stats prof tortured generations of college kids for nothing - seriously, if we can just average something as complex as global climatology why the heck bother with all the rest of that statistics stuff? One handy number to hang a hat on sounds like a media bone and not a research tool.

      I think the 2016 election is rather telling - we've gotten into the very bad habit of amalgamating. Sure, it's easier for news outlets but nearly impossible to catch all the errors - and like 2016, you (general) can miss something that affects the results. Might not be as ridiculous as the Dewey win, but it does erode public confidence in polling and will eventually damage it significantly. (I actually saw an amalgamation that included Survey Monkey!!! )

      And I'll mention that it introduces a variable in political polling - but that's not true in the global measurements - at least not the same way and not as far as I know (pretty sure that's NOT how Heidelberg works - would be funny, though. ).
      Last edited by Teallaura; 03-19-2018, 06:12 PM.
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        Sure - but remember, you can quickly over read if you concentrate only on the phrasing you find irritating - and thereby miss opportunities.

        Come down to your own intent - do you want to change minds or do you want to re-affirm with those of like mind? Individually, either is a perfectly fine choice - but as a political movement, the former is the only valid choice. Political winds change - and if this thing is real and really possible to be affected by human activity, then the movement is highly vulnerable politically and I doubt most proponents realize it.



        My stats prof taught us to avoid it like the plague - maybe not that much, but to be very aware of how easily skewed a mean is. Averaging measurements across the globe - but with collection issues (locations) on top of it? If i were having similar issues in a survey study, I'd never even consider a mean - the chances of it being skewed are even higher.

        I understand weighting - and again, my research background makes me leery of it. It has a place - there are perfectly valid reasons to use it - BUT it's also a really easy way to muck up your (general) own research. Professionally, I've seen it abused to the point of absurdity (it's literally unwise to rely on Ryan White data as a direct result of the insane levels of simple misuse of weighting) so it automatically raises a yellow flag - and in my opinion, it's scary how few researchers seem to look critically at it.

        "Weighted mean' sounds like 'accident waiting to happen'. And it should - because the first thing that we (general) should look at is methodology - and make darn sure that the study actually measures what it thinks it does - sometimes we get stuck having to use analysis we'd rather not and needing to weight - but no conclusion should be accepted if the methodology hasn't been scrutinized. Don't assume it's wrong because it raises a yellow flag - don't assume it's right because it doesn't raise a red one.

        Median is normally preferable to mean but I did understand that it wasn't considered valid due to the same skewing issue (locations). Which brings up another question - why a mean/median/mode analysis for the entire globe at all?

        Honestly it makes me question what's with the obsession with a single analysis? Using a single reference for an entire globe sounds kinda weird, really - why amalgamate that way when a compilation approach should reasonably produce the same indications over time? There really have got to be better analysis' than 'let's average global temps and throw in some highly educated guesswork'. This looks political to me - because pollsters do the exact same thing (it's media, not research, driven) - but maybe it's just for convenience? Maybe there's a really good reason - but if so, my stats prof tortured generations of college kids for nothing - seriously, if we can just average something as complex as global climatology why the heck bother with all the rest of that statistics stuff? One handy number to hang a hat on sounds like a media bone and not a research tool.

        I think the 2016 election is rather telling - we've gotten into the very bad habit of amalgamating. Sure, it's easier for news outlets but nearly impossible to catch all the errors - and like 2016, you (general) can miss something that affects the results. Might not be as ridiculous as the Dewey win, but it does erode public confidence in polling and will eventually damage it significantly. (I actually saw an amalgamation that included Survey Monkey!!! )

        And I'll mention that it introduces a variable in political polling - but that's not true in the global measurements - at least not the same way and not as far as I know (pretty sure that's NOT how Heidelberg works - would be funny, though. ).
        Teal,

        Honestly, I think you are way overgeneralizing. The mean global temperature does probably represent a good measurement of the overall trend of climate on the earth, for more than any other summary notion of what is happening. But if not, why? And what better measure would you propose? Temperature varies a huge amount over the surface of the earth, day to day and seasonally. But the mean tells us generally how much heat is being retained at the surface, and over time if that is changing. For assessing the total heat median would be a horrible measure. We are trying to assess total energy balance, not sell some new fangled product.

        So you should get to the specifics of what the data actually is, what the trends actually are, what the adjustments that are being used are and how they compare to the raw data. What the best data sets say in comparison to the adjusted data and so forth. That is where you can figure out how much is politics and how much is science. Generalized statements about what could be or what should be won't really settle anything and can lead in all the wrong directions.

        Jim
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • #79
          I'd agree with Jim that you're overthinking this.

          The mean temperature anomaly is just one of a large number of ways we track what's happening to our atmosphere. We watch incoming solar radiation, we track radiation sent back out to space, we track whole-atmosphere temperatures, we track ocean heat distribution, etc. etc. All of them provide useful scientific information, because there are so many questions we want to ask about the energy balance of our planet.

          This is just the one that people pay the most attention to because it directly reflects what we experience - the temperatures of the portion of the atmosphere that we feel every time we step out the door.

          And your dislike of means is a bit overly strong. They're not bad or good; they're a statistical tool that's useful for some things and less so for others. Here, if you want to know on average what the lower troposphere is up to, there's no better option than the mean. And researchers have handled some of the biggest problems with using a mean by giving it geographic weighting, and expressing it as a difference compared with a baseline, as opposed to as some concrete value.

          The multiple independent teams who calculate this aren't staffed by idiots who will make basic statistical mistakes, and the values it's calculated using are nothing like the changeable human behaviors registered by polling.

          Look, it's possible for you to throw out spurious objections much faster than anyone can make evidence-based replies. At some point you have to ask yourself why you feel compelled to raise so many vague objections in the first place.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            I'd agree with Jim that you're overthinking this.

            The mean temperature anomaly is just one of a large number of ways we track what's happening to our atmosphere. We watch incoming solar radiation, we track radiation sent back out to space, we track whole-atmosphere temperatures, we track ocean heat distribution, etc. etc. All of them provide useful scientific information, because there are so many questions we want to ask about the energy balance of our planet.

            This is just the one that people pay the most attention to because it directly reflects what we experience - the temperatures of the portion of the atmosphere that we feel every time we step out the door.

            And your dislike of means is a bit overly strong. They're not bad or good; they're a statistical tool that's useful for some things and less so for others. Here, if you want to know on average what the lower troposphere is up to, there's no better option than the mean. And researchers have handled some of the biggest problems with using a mean by giving it geographic weighting, and expressing it as a difference compared with a baseline, as opposed to as some concrete value.

            The multiple independent teams who calculate this aren't staffed by idiots who will make basic statistical mistakes, and the values it's calculated using are nothing like the changeable human behaviors registered by polling.

            Look, it's possible for you to throw out spurious objections much faster than anyone can make evidence-based replies. At some point you have to ask yourself why you feel compelled to raise so many vague objections in the first place.
            This is one of the more throughtful, well phrased posts I've seen on this subject.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              Teal,

              Honestly, I think you are way overgeneralizing. The mean global temperature does probably represent a good measurement of the overall trend of climate on the earth, for more than any other summary notion of what is happening. But if not, why?
              I'm asking why a general analysis like a mean is being used - it seems overly simplified.

              Better question to my mind from just a basic methodological view is why - is this actually externally valid?



              And what better measure would you propose? Temperature varies a huge amount over the surface of the earth, day to day and seasonally. But the mean tells us generally how much heat is being retained at the surface, and over time if that is changing. For assessing the total heat median would be a horrible measure. We are trying to assess total energy balance, not sell some new fangled product.
              Already answered after a fashion - I made a couple observations that could be used as suggestions (median, compilation) - but it is utterly besides the point - why use a mean to describe a global analysis in the first place? As I already said, it may be perfectly valid but it seems odd to take really complex and make it boil down to a single number.

              You objection to the median differs from the earlier (locations of data collection) objection - but once again, I'd already conceded the validity on the basis of the earlier objection - but as far as skew is concerned, median is not nearly as susceptible as mean which was why I mentioned it in direct answer to Lurch's question.



              So you should get to the specifics of what the data actually is, what the trends actually are, what the adjustments that are being used are and how they compare to the raw data. What the best data sets say in comparison to the adjusted data and so forth. That is where you can figure out how much is politics and how much is science. Generalized statements about what could be or what should be won't really settle anything and can lead in all the wrong directions.

              Jim
              According to previous posters - and stuff I've read elsewhere - the global analysis in question here is a weighted mean. I haven't said what it should or shouldn't be - I've explained why this causes some questions in my mind (skew, potential oversimplification, potential political/media influence). Reading 'question' as 'statement' is far more likely to 'lead in the wrong direction', don't you think?
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                I'd agree with Jim that you're overthinking this.

                The mean temperature anomaly is just one of a large number of ways we track what's happening to our atmosphere. We watch incoming solar radiation, we track radiation sent back out to space, we track whole-atmosphere temperatures, we track ocean heat distribution, etc. etc. All of them provide useful scientific information, because there are so many questions we want to ask about the energy balance of our planet.

                This is just the one that people pay the most attention to because it directly reflects what we experience - the temperatures of the portion of the atmosphere that we feel every time we step out the door.

                And your dislike of means is a bit overly strong. They're not bad or good; they're a statistical tool that's useful for some things and less so for others. Here, if you want to know on average what the lower troposphere is up to, there's no better option than the mean. And researchers have handled some of the biggest problems with using a mean by giving it geographic weighting, and expressing it as a difference compared with a baseline, as opposed to as some concrete value.

                The multiple independent teams who calculate this aren't staffed by idiots who will make basic statistical mistakes, and the values it's calculated using are nothing like the changeable human behaviors registered by polling.

                Look, it's possible for you to throw out spurious objections much faster than anyone can make evidence-based replies. At some point you have to ask yourself why you feel compelled to raise so many vague objections in the first place.
                *emphasis mine

                Heh, neither is Gallup - but I've seen them make some whoopers. Anyone can make a mistake - and weighting is incredibly complex which is why it can easily introduce error even when done carefully. It's still a valid tool - but it's not infallible nor are the experts using it.

                That is the problem there - I conceded early on that the mean may be valid and simply explained why it raises cautionary flags in my mind based on my background, knowledge and experience. You just dismissed it all as 'spurious' - let me ask you this - isn't that the exact same thing you complain about opponents doing? Dismissing explanations? Here of course, I'm just explaining what bugs me - that's not calling anyone an idiot or even asserting that they are wrong - I went out of my way multiple times to say that validity was certainly possible despite my questions and I didn't debate - I didn't make assertions about the correctness. I just tried to understand why.

                I explained the issues with means - I did not moralize them.

                As to the first few paragraphs, you basically provided an argument for 'media bone' - it's just easier to throw the media a nice single number and a pretty line graph than try to get them to understand all the other (quite probably better) analysis' you mentioned. I find the 'people get it better because they experience temperature' idea mildly odd but okay - I see no issue with it particularly.



                I've greatly appreciated your help - you've answered my questions graciously but I think it best I bow out now.
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • #83
                  Interesting change in wind velocities that may be related to climate change [maybe?].

                  Source: https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/the-wind-is-slowing-down



                  The wind is slowing down

                  Near-surface wind speeds over landmasses across the planet have dropped by as much as 25% since the 1970s, and climate scientists are taking note. Michael Lucy reports.

                  The wind isn’t what it used to be. Scientists say surface wind speeds across the planet have fallen by as much as 25% since the 1970s. The eerie phenomenon – dubbed ‘stilling’ – is believed to be a consequence of global warming, and may impact everything from agriculture to the liveability of our cities. It has taken more than a decade for scientists to get a handle on stilling, a term coined by Australian National University ecohydrologist Michael Roderick in 2007.

                  Roderick had spent years studying a 50-year decline across Europe and North America of a climate metric called pan evaporation. It measures the rate at which water evaporates from a dish left outside. With his colleague biophysicist Graham Farquhar, he found the cause: the sunlight had dimmed due to air pollution. Less light equals slower evaporation.

                  In 2002, after publishing the explanation in the journal Science, Roderick received a query from Roger Beale, the head of Australia’s federal department for the environment. Was pan evaporation also declining in Australia? “To my embarrassment,” Roderick recalls, “I had to say I didn’t know, because I’d never looked.”

                  Two years later, he had an answer: the pan evaporation rate was also falling in Australia. It was puzzling, however, as air pollution levels on the continent were lower than those of Europe or North America.

                  CLIMATE

                  Roderick went back to basics. The rate of evaporation depends on four factors: air temperature, humidity, the amount of solar radiation and wind speed. After another three years of combing through meteorological records, he had pinned down the culprit: “To my absolute surprise, we found the main reason for the drop in Australia was less wind – and by a lot.”

                  Roderick unearthed other local studies from around the world with similar findings, but till then no one had joined the dots.

                  He teamed up with Tim McVicar, a hydrologist at Australia’s national science agency, the CSIRO, who was looking for global wind patterns and their effects on evaporation. In 2012 this team – led by McVicar – compiled results from almost 150 regional studies to show stilling was taking place across much of the world.

                  In Australia in the 1970s, average wind speed a couple of metres above the ground was 2.2 metres per second: in 2017 it was 1.6 metres per second.

                  Over landmasses from as far north as Svalbard, 1,050 km from the North Pole, to as far south as the coast of Antarctica, “observations show that wind is stilling”, McVicar says.

                  Conversely, the wind is getting faster around the poles and in certain coastal areas. In a perplexing twist, ocean winds also appear to be accelerating.

                  Several explanations have been proposed for the stilling.

                  Robert Vautard, who studies climate change at France’s National Centre for Scientific Research, has a benign answer for some of the change: more vegetation, spurred by rising temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. It increases ‘surface roughness’, which slows the wind.

                  The planet’s rising temperatures are another likely culprit.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  This is not related to the frequency nor severity of hurricanes and other storms, which may, but uncertain, increasing.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                  48 responses
                  135 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Sparko
                  by Sparko
                   
                  Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                  16 responses
                  74 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                  6 responses
                  48 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Working...
                  X