�Global Temperature� � Why Should We Trust A Statistic That Might Not Even Exist?

[rogue06]

Laughing.... when I have a GOOD idea (come on, it happens) I always say "It HURTS to be this smart".

So... only once a decade or so?

[seer]

So... only once a decade or so?

Then you have a lot of catching up to do!

[oxmixmudd]

Except it's not the same measurement. There are far fewer temperature stations now than in years past, many of those stations are no longer optimally placed due to urban expansion, huge swaths of the earth have no temperature stations (notably many of the earth's coldest regions), and the data, including the historic record, has been "adjusted" so many times that it is now thoroughly corrupted and untrustworthy.

It is the same measurement MM in all the ways that matter. No it is not a measurement made from exactly the same set of stations for the last 100 years, but to think that invalidates the results is ignorance. We have better ways of assessing the global temperature today than we did. Better stations, better compensating algorithms, more comprehensive data sets and sources - e.g. satellite data. Care is taken to make the global average the most accurate measurement possible year over year, including compensations for know biases in older data, which produces things that are hard to understand for some like Time Of Measurement Bias adjustments and the like. Oversimplified statements like the above simply don't reflect reality in any meaningful way.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Same here. That gets us the "climate denier" label, however.

No it doesn't, not from me anyway. But if you post nutcases pseudo-science, I will point out what what you posted is nutcase pseudo-science.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

It is the same measurement MM in all the ways that matter. No it is not a measurement made from exactly the same set of stations for the last 100 years, but to think that invalidates the results is ignorance.

What invalidates the results is the amount of "massaging" that has to be done to paper over the numerous coverage gaps, and how the historic record has been irreparably corrupted by arbitrary "adjustments" designed to fit the hypothesis rather than adjusting the hypothesis to fit the data.

[One Bad Pig]

No it doesn't, not from me anyway. But if you post nutcases pseudo-science, I will point out what what you posted is nutcase pseudo-science.


Jim

That's fair.

[oxmixmudd]

What invalidates the results is the amount of "massaging" that has to be done to paper over the numerous coverage gaps, and how the historic record has been irreparably corrupted by arbitrary "adjustments" designed to fit the hypothesis rather than adjusting the hypothesis to fit the data.

That isn't what is happening MM. I realize you don't have the background to be able to understand what is actually being done so you just have to take the word of those you trust, but you've basically hitched your train to the wrong wagon. OTOH, any time I've tried (or others) to offer any sort of basic explanation, you just venture off into rank sarcasm and ignore everything that is said. So we have to add in the fact this is willful ignorance on your part.

So what more can be said. You don't want to learn, and you think you already know - so what more is there to say, except that you are wrong.


Jim

[firstfloor]

The sign of a misspent youth; too much Bible study and not enough education.

The article is a straightforward straw man. The interesting thing about average temperatures over any given area is how it changes over time.

[Teallaura]

Told you so!

[Teallaura]

The sign of a misspent youth; too much Bible study and not enough education.

The article is a straightforward straw man. The interesting thing about average temperatures over any given area is how it changes over time.

It's an AVERAGE - the mean is next to useless whenever the distribution is wide - as it is with the planet.

Highest Recorded Temperature: 134.1 F (56.7 C)
Lowest Recorded Temperature: -128.6 F (-89 C)
So, the mean is calculated by adding up all the temps taken in a given period in that range and dividing by the number of data points. It's ridiculously skewed because there are a LOT of places we don't take surface temps for (or don't take them regularly) and a lot we CAN'T take surface temps for (war zones are not conducive to long careers if you are dumb enough to try to build a station in them). The range is wide - especially considering how often we're told that a change in the average of only a 1.5 degree C will signal the END OF THE WORLD!

But, of course, it's not a pure average - can't be, it would oscillate too much from reading to reading (averages skew easily) - it has to be weighted.

For a complex system we DON'T fully understand, we're weighting the average temperature. Yeah - no. Amateur night at the OK Corral...

To be honest, I don't think a median would fix that mess - I don't see how either one is meaningful. It's like taking the interior temperature of your car with AC on max, the temperature of the trunk and the running engine temp and averaging them. Easy to do - but what, exactly, does it tell you about the real car? Well, let's see:

Interior: 68 F (MAX AC for the win!)
Trunk: 105 F (sunny day in Alabama!)
Engine: 200 F (average range for most engines is 195 F to 220 F - took the low end)

68 + 105 + 200 = 124.3333333333

The car is an oven!

Okay, so what does that actually tell us? Not a danged thing. We're reducing a complex machine that has varying parameters to a single measure that has no bearing on car comfort, performance or safety - although the three data points we took bear on those matters individually (yeah, you don't want a trunk that gets as hot as the engine - gasoline vapor can ignite at high temps all by its lonesome. When it does that in the engine, we call it a backfire which is a relatively minor problem. When it does that in the trunk we call that a big explosion...)

But an average of the data points in a FAR MORE COMPLEX SYSTEM is supposed to be meaningful? Yeah, right...

[Sparko]

It's an AVERAGE - the mean is next to useless whenever the distribution is wide - as it is with the planet.

Highest Recorded Temperature: 134.1 F (56.7 C)
Lowest Recorded Temperature: -128.6 F (-89 C)
So, the mean is calculated by adding up all the temps taken in a given period in that range and dividing by the number of data points. It's ridiculously skewed because there are a LOT of places we don't take surface temps for (or don't take them regularly) and a lot we CAN'T take surface temps for (war zones are not conducive to long careers if you are dumb enough to try to build a station in them). The range is wide - especially considering how often we're told that a change in the average of only a 1.5 degree C will signal the END OF THE WORLD!

But, of course, it's not a pure average - can't be, it would oscillate too much from reading to reading (averages skew easily) - it has to be weighted.

For a complex system we DON'T fully understand, we're weighting the average temperature. Yeah - no. Amateur night at the OK Corral...

To be honest, I don't think a median would fix that mess - I don't see how either one is meaningful. It's like taking the interior temperature of your car with AC on max, the temperature of the trunk and the running engine temp and averaging them. Easy to do - but what, exactly, does it tell you about the real car? Well, let's see:

Interior: 68 F (MAX AC for the win!)
Trunk: 105 F (sunny day in Alabama!)
Engine: 200 F (average range for most engines is 195 F to 220 F - took the low end)

68 + 105 + 200 = 124.3333333333

The car is an oven!

Okay, so what does that actually tell us? Not a danged thing. We're reducing a complex machine that has varying parameters to a single measure that has no bearing on car comfort, performance or safety - although the three data points we took bear on those matters individually (yeah, you don't want a trunk that gets as hot as the engine - gasoline vapor can ignite at high temps all by its lonesome. When it does that in the engine, we call it a backfire which is a relatively minor problem. When it does that in the trunk we call that a big explosion...)

But an average of the data points in a FAR MORE COMPLEX SYSTEM is supposed to be meaningful? Yeah, right...

The average temperature on the moon is around 10F

[Juvenal]

Actually, I had one last week, too ...

Doesn't count if you stole it.

[firstfloor]

[Teallaura]

It's actually not true - you only need a skew - which is pretty easy to get when you average.

The question is 'does 'average global temperature' actually mean anything in the real world? Averages are seductive because they are so easy to do - but they are easily skewed and frequently run into external validity problems.

[Mountain Man]

That isn't what is happening MM. I realize you don't have the background to be able to understand what is actually being done so you just have to take the word of those you trust, but you've basically hitched your train to the wrong wagon. OTOH, any time I've tried (or others) to offer any sort of basic explanation, you just venture off into rank sarcasm and ignore everything that is said. So we have to add in the fact this is willful ignorance on your part.

So what more can be said. You don't want to learn, and you think you already know - so what more is there to say, except that you are wrong.


Jim

Right... that must be why a significant number of scientists and statisticians reject the global warming hypothesis, and the "consensus" is a load of crap.