‘Global Temperature’ — Why Should We Trust A Statistic That Might Not Even Exist?

[rogue06]

Keep that in mind as you look forward to being married.

[Teallaura]

The weather can be predicted accurately only a few hours ahead. The further ahead you want to look, the coarser the prediction. If you want to see 50 years ahead, all complex detail is lost. The average is what you see if you look into the distance.

That's not at all what the global average temperature is supposed to be...

Er, let's give this up. I think we're talking past each other at this point. But I do appreciate you making the effort.

[Teallaura]

Yes, I think Teallaura is beginning to see through the fog.

Er, probably not - y'all are now insisting on a usage of the mean that my stats prof taught me was a bad, bad idea. And you've got a cross section used to make predictions?

No, comparing across categories with a mean then using it to predict? Nope, not buying that without some serious proof and a lot of Tylenol (mostly for the having to dig through a proof - and the Strawberry's subsequent posts... )

[Juvenal]

The actually funny part is that the "graph" has nothing to do with the need for less clothing due to the earth warming ...

Crush my dreams.

[Juvenal]

No Sparko, seen the way most of you saw it at first, it's just funny regardless. I didn't see it having that meaning the first time I saw it. That is what changed.

But It's funny in the different context than what I originally observed because of how it indirectly indicates the warming through the move to the need for less and less clothing - underwear - on women, who are traditionally 'cold' at night, and towards forms more commonly seen in swimsuits on women in tropical climes. IOW, it has more raw humorous value seen that way, and likely I'd have seen it as funny even if rogue had used it to mock AGW, though I'd have still been annoyed at supporting pseudo-science with it.

Had I initially seen it as above, my comment would have been more " - yes that is funny, but why are you ..."


Jim

I'm kinda Lutheran on that. I want to believe for the right reasons.

More directly, I didn't want to believe. My political leanings were conservative (in exile from the voodoo eeks and young earth creaks thundering over the shiny new welcome mats), bordering on libertarianism. I don't want a bigger government.

But if we're going to address global warming, as a people, or, let's face it, as a species, we have to do it by organizing, with an organization big enough to touch the world, and libertarianism was never going to hoe that row.

The alternative was to deny the science.

Or give up libertarianism.

I won't give up arguing that accepting AGW is conservative, though, because it is. AGW is what the data show. Conservatives don't hide from facts. They leave that for the googoos.

[rogue06]

ok - I now see how you think it 'supports' global warming - and in that light, it is funny

I figured that you'd eventually "get it."

[Joel]

Over time the heat absorbed by the ocean raises its surface temperature to a point where the atmosphere once again can warm. As heat is added to the system by the increased retained heat due to GHGes, it does flow back and forth between various elements of the planet surface. But Over time the surface atmospheric temperature trend is still up. Yes, it is very complicated and not easily simplified, which is part of the problem in explaining what is going on to the public at large.

Jim

(bolded emphasis mine) This seems to support Teallaura's argument.

[Joel]

But if we're going to address global warming, as a people, or, let's face it, as a species, we have to do it by organizing, with an organization big enough to touch the world, and libertarianism was never going to hoe that row.

Libertarianism has nothing against organizing. (Note that the market is the largest, most complex, most successful human organization in the world.) It only holds that it ought to be consensual, rather than coercive.

And just because there's a problem doesn't mean that things can be improved by coercive, central planning. Is there reason to think that coercive central planning can beneficially manage something as complex as the global climate, considering that the attempts to similarly manage other complexities tends to cause negative (or even disastrous) outcomes? And it is not separable from economics. That is, a central planner would need to know not just climatology, but what are the economic costs and benefits of all possible (in)actions.


Since, I've brought up economics, the errors of Keynesianism and of attempts to build computer models/predictions of the economy are largely due to the attempt to use averages and aggregates, of complex, heterogeneous things--aggregates that don't refer to any actual thing, and that obscure the real, important causes and effects. So these aggregate values become misleading at best. That makes me wonder whether this folly of averaging/aggregating is common to complex systems, which would include the global ecosystem. Which is why I'm interested in this thread.

[Teallaura]

Libertarianism has nothing against organizing. (Note that the market is the largest, most complex, most successful human organization in the world.) It only holds that it ought to be consensual, rather than coercive.

And just because there's a problem doesn't mean that things can be improved by coercive, central planning. Is there reason to think that coercive central planning can beneficially manage something as complex as the global climate, considering that the attempts to similarly manage other complexities tends to cause negative (or even disastrous) outcomes? And it is not separable from economics. That is, a central planner would need to know not just climatology, but what are the economic costs and benefits of all possible (in)actions.


Since, I've brought up economics, the errors of Keynesianism and of attempts to build computer models/predictions of the economy are largely due to the attempt to use averages and aggregates, of complex, heterogeneous things--aggregates that don't refer to any actual thing, and that obscure the real, important causes and effects. So these aggregate values become misleading at best. That makes me wonder whether this folly of averaging/aggregating is common to complex systems, which would include the global ecosystem. Which is why I'm interested in this thread.

I heard in a video of a talk with some physicists that if the computer modeling of the climate included all the variables it would take forty years to get a result returned.

[oxmixmudd]

No, Jim, you were INSULTING my intelligence in a passive-aggressive way, while refusing to address what I actually said and responding to that. It was classic ad hominem.

Let's dissect it:


1. refusing to deal with what I actually said. 2. Insinuating that I am stupid.



3. Coming right out and calling me stupid.


Insinuating that I was either lying or actually am that ignorant. If I were to say "right I am not that ignorant" then I would have been lying to you. If I am being serious, which I was, then you are calling me ignorant, while pretending you think I am "smarter than that".

You go around insulting people all the time Jim. Then you get upset when they push back and complain they are bullying you!

I suppose you will do the same here. But what you did to me was indeed "ad hominem"

Now we can just ignore this little sidetrack and you could respond to my original post with a modicum of civility and if you think I am wrong, explain why, without calling me stupid.


Here is the original link

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post664515
Well I have seen various highs and lows as far as Maximum temperatures on the moon, so I could calculate the average temperature of the moon from anywhere of -30F to +40F, just by picking and choosing which max/min temperatures to use, but that really doesn't tell you anything, as you would be hard pressed to actually find 10F on the moon anywhere. And the surface temperature varies on the lit side depending on the latitude also. Averages don't really help when you can just play with the data and get a wide range of "averages" - and if you can do it so easily on the moon, imagine the margin of error on the Earth, a planet with actual weather?

There is nothing insulting or demeaning, no derogatory comments or sarcasm in my post. I WAS trying to have a normal discussion.

I guess it seemed more sarcasm to me because no one would ever try to calculate an average surface temperature in such a haphazard way. I just didnt think you could possiblybe serious. It sounds like you actually were serious and so I apologize. But sparko as much sarcasm as you use against me, and as much as you put me down, how exactly do you expect me to be able to

1 tell the difference
2 not sometimes get fristrated and annoyed enough not to check every single time.

Your expectations are just ridiculous. I am not perfect. And if you treat me like cow dung most of the time, then dont be surprised if you get burned the one time you aren't

Jim

[Joel]

There is an average surface temperature and it is about 14 degrees Centigrade.

My comfort range centers around 23 degrees C. Can we turn up the dial a bit?

[Juvenal]

How about instead of using ad hominem* you actually tell me why I am wrong?


*see? I do know what ad hominem means.

Just FYI, there's a subtle difference between an ad hominem and an ad hominem fallacy. All insults are ad hominem. For example, you'll sometimes hear "Please move away from the ad hominems" in a formal setting after the bounds of civility have been breached.

It is only when an ad hominem is used to argue against a position that it can be considered a fallacy. But then again, neither are all ad hominem arguments fallacies. Trump, for instance (in relation to the linked thread), is an inveterate liar. Yes, that's ad hominem. But it's also a true statement that's relevant to the weight that should be afforded to his denials. Hence an ad hominem argument that is not a fallacy.

[Juvenal]

Since, I've brought up economics, the errors of Keynesianism and of attempts to build computer models/predictions of the economy are largely due to the attempt to use averages and aggregates, of complex, heterogeneous things--aggregates that don't refer to any actual thing, and that obscure the real, important causes and effects. So these aggregate values become misleading at best. That makes me wonder whether this folly of averaging/aggregating is common to complex systems, which would include the global ecosystem. Which is why I'm interested in this thread.

Please note this is a thread for displaying your climate change crank credentials. It'd probably be better to display your economic crank addiction elsewhere.

[Juvenal]

Here is the original link

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post664515
Well I have seen various highs and lows as far as Maximum temperatures on the moon, so I could calculate the average temperature of the moon from anywhere of -30F to +40F, just by picking and choosing which max/min temperatures to use, but that really doesn't tell you anything, as you would be hard pressed to actually find 10F on the moon anywhere. And the surface temperature varies on the lit side depending on the latitude also. Averages don't really help when you can just play with the data and get a wide range of "averages" - and if you can do it so easily on the moon, imagine the margin of error on the Earth, a planet with actual weather?

Again FYI, global averages, by definition, avoid "picking and choosing" to suit a particular position. If the average global surface temperature of the moon showed a marked trend over time, it would be significant. Mut. mut., the trend in average global surface temperatures on the Earth are significant.

And they've been studied. Similarly the "forcings" that are driving the trend have been measured and tabulated, and are currently in use by every industrialized nation other than our own to inform global climate policy.

[firstfloor]

Please note this is a thread for displaying your climate change crank credentials. It'd probably be better to display your economic crank addiction elsewhere.

Scale factors work on linear systems, but most complex systems are not linear. The biosphere is definitely not linear; e.g. ice melts. In some ways, the average and how it will change, is the only thing that is certain.