Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

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

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

  • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    The mean does not describe the climate. We know that the mean temperature has gone up by over 1 degree Centigrade since the start of the industrial revolution. And we know if that if the average gets to 2, we have really serious problems. That low number does not sound so bad until you realise what an average means in this case; when climate ensures that warming, and cooling is not evenly distributed. The variability has a multiplying effect.
    Okay, much better - so explain how you know what the average means in this case and we should be there.
    "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


    • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      And yet again, I get anything but an answer to the actual question.

      Do you even understand the concept of validity? Showing a trend does NOT mean it's externally valid (lends credence, but does not prove, internal validity).

      WHY is this being used as a freaking metric for a complex system?

      Oh, and knock off the 'holier than thou' crap - show why I'm mistaken (which you can't because you cannot even answer the actual question) or get lost.
      Name a complex system where someone other than you thinks using a mean isn't valid.

      And valid for what? It's a statistic. You analyze it. Like any statistic, sometimes it's subject to random variations, and sometimes it's moving in a distinguishable direction, at which point we can ask why it's moving. The mean global temperature is moving in a distinguishable direction. p-test it! Hmm, something's happening here.

      Teal, stripped of the meaningless drivel about statistics you're pulling out of your backside, you're arguing that global mean temperatures aren't useful in analyzing global warming.

      That's crazy.

      Or worse, you're arguing that we can't measure global warming.

      That's even crazier.

      Stop already.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
        Name a complex system where someone other than you thinks using a mean isn't valid.

        ...
        No, you stop - right there. You can't answer the question - I suspect you don't understand it. That's not a dig - despite the fact you keep making nasty ones at me - but mathematicians are bad about getting lost in the weeds (and arithmetic, but that's another story). I am asking about a specific type of validity - external validity.

        If you don't know the answer, that's fine. But stop shifting the burden - the question was put forth pages before you showed up. I've explained it - I've no need to defend it. Just answer the question or own up that you don't know the answer. Or get lost - I'm not picky.

        Answer the question asked - or leave me alone. Period.
        "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


        • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          Okay, much better - so explain how you know what the average means in this case and we should be there.
          So, I think we agree that mean temperature is a characteristic of the system, it is extremely stable and it is headed slowly upwards due to changes in the concentration of various gases in the atmosphere, and that movement can be deduced from a simple model.

          Firstly, surface warming is not evenly distributed across the globe. The land is different from the sea (let’s not bother with the details at the moment). From that you deduce that the land surfaces will see a higher than global average increase in average temperature.

          Secondly, surface temperatures at a place vary according to season and variations in the weather, and can be described by a normal distribution or ‘bell’ curve. A higher average means that this curve shifts sideways on a graph and produces many more record breaking events. This is why we are seeing all the hottest years now. Notice that the global average, modified slightly according to your place on the planet can be directly applied to you local weather patterns.

          By the way, I had a look at what ‘external validity’ was. It seems to be about how generalizable the findings are. It seems to me that the global mean can be applied to local conditions.
          “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
          “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
          “not all there” - you know who you are

          Comment


          • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
            So, I think we agree that mean temperature is a characteristic of the system, it is extremely stable and it is headed slowly upwards due to changes in the concentration of various gases in the atmosphere, and that movement can be deduced from a simple model.

            Firstly, surface warming is not evenly distributed across the globe. The land is different from the sea (let’s not bother with the details at the moment). From that you deduce that the land surfaces will see a higher than global average increase in average temperature.

            Secondly, surface temperatures at a place vary according to season and variations in the weather, and can be described by a normal distribution or ‘bell’ curve. A higher average means that this curve shifts sideways on a graph and produces many more record breaking events. This is why we are seeing all the hottest years now. Notice that the global average, modified slightly according to your place on the planet can be directly applied to you local weather patterns.

            By the way, I had a look at what ‘external validity’ was. It seems to be about how generalizable the findings are. It seems to me that the global mean can be applied to local conditions.
            It can over time, but not necessarily in an easy to predict form. As I have pointed out, the eastern US experience a 1 to 2 degree cooling in the late 50s early 60s due to a shift in altlantic circulation patterns. That shift may or may not have been driven by AGW, and the AGW signal still swamps that negative local dip even in that local data, but we would not have known to predict that or how to fold AGW into understanding that event.

            As has been said, the global mean temperature is a stable measure of the lower atmosphere's heat retention and distrubution caoacity Without an atmosphere, heat absorbed by the surface during the day escapes unhindered back into space during the night. With an atmosphere heat from the sun is retained and redistrbuted.

            If the total solar insolation is constant and the planets suface configuration is constant, then a change in the mean temperature neans the heat retention capacity of the atmosphere is increasing.

            But the solar insolation is not constant, it varies in 11 year cycles, and the changes in those cycles vary for causes we are only beginning to understand.

            Orbital characteristics like precesion also impact solar insolation over very long term cycles.

            And the insulative capacity of the atmosphere varies according to changes in natural planetary gaseous outputs, like volcanoes.

            We can observe those changes and calculate their net potential effect. Just like we can monitor our own net GHG output.

            And the bottom line is that human GHG emissions is the only thing that can account for the monotonic increase in co2 content and the amount of temperature shift in the mean global temperature as a consequence of that associated changing atmospheric heat retention capacity. Especially since the 1970's

            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


            • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              No, you stop - right there. You can't answer the question - I suspect you don't understand it. That's not a dig - despite the fact you keep making nasty ones at me - but mathematicians are bad about getting lost in the weeds (and arithmetic, but that's another story). I am asking about a specific type of validity - external validity.

              If you don't know the answer, that's fine. But stop shifting the burden - the question was put forth pages before you showed up. I've explained it - I've no need to defend it. Just answer the question or own up that you don't know the answer. Or get lost - I'm not picky.

              Answer the question asked - or leave me alone. Period.
              Ain't no freaking way you will ever in two more lifetimes know enough math to challenge a mathematician in his field, Laura. Statistics, and sorry for having to say something that can't help being condescending, because you don't seem to know, is math, too. You're not getting answers because your question is absurd.

              Your little hobgoblin, external validity, that tiny bit of statistics you managed to pick up in school for use in your field work, is about checking to see if the necessary internal validity of the tiny statistical samples you encounter in field work, can be extended to a population.

              These ain't small samples, cutie-pie.

              External validity is a nonsense criteria for challenging the use of global mean temperatures composited from the billions of measurements in climate science datasets, and you can't get around that with a southernish drawl, "Oooh," fan atwitterin', "it's too complex for little ole me!" The large number theorem says you're butchering the math. I say you're butchering the math. And I would know.


              You're right about the other thing, though.

              Never trust arithmetic to anyone who can prove that 2 + 2 = 5.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                So, I think we agree that mean temperature is a characteristic of the system, it is extremely stable and it is headed slowly upwards due to changes in the concentration of various gases in the atmosphere, and that movement can be deduced from a simple model.

                Firstly, surface warming is not evenly distributed across the globe. The land is different from the sea (let’s not bother with the details at the moment). From that you deduce that the land surfaces will see a higher than global average increase in average temperature.

                Secondly, surface temperatures at a place vary according to season and variations in the weather, and can be described by a normal distribution or ‘bell’ curve. A higher average means that this curve shifts sideways on a graph and produces many more record breaking events. This is why we are seeing all the hottest years now. Notice that the global average, modified slightly according to your place on the planet can be directly applied to you local weather patterns.

                By the way, I had a look at what ‘external validity’ was. It seems to be about how generalizable the findings are. It seems to me that the global mean can be applied to local conditions.
                Just letting you know I saw this. Sick today - I'll answer properly tomorrow.

                But yes, we're finally on the same page
                "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


                • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  MM has bought hook line and sinker into both the pseudo-science funded by industries threatened by a move away from fossil fuels and the conspiracy theories that tend to partner with it.
                  And you've bought hook line and sinker the pseudo-science of those willing to do anything to push their political agenda while ironically claiming that justified skepticism and genuine scientific inquiry is "pseudo-science".
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    And you've bought hook line and sinker the pseudo-science of those willing to do anything to push their political agenda while ironically claiming that justified skepticism and genuine scientific inquiry is "pseudo-science".
                    Anyone can take a statement and turn it around. The truth value of each statement in this case lies in the science itself. And who has bought into pseudo science vs actual science can be determined by looking at that science. Are you willing to look at the actual science MM? Although you siding with the idea the mean global temperature is 'meaningless' does not bode well for you, I will be glad to discuss it with you.

                    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


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      Are you willing to look at the actual science MM?
                      I am. And I have. That's why I know it's only the charlatans who insist that the science is "settled".
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        I am. And I have. That's why I know it's only the charlatans who insist that the science is "settled".
                        No MM, you havent - at least not as evidenced by any post you have ever made on this site regarding AGW. Lots of sarcasm and lots of tobacco science. But you have never dealt seriously with the actual data and physics that drives the general conscensus.


                        And you still are not, as you are just avoiding the issue with this reply.


                        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


                        • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                          So, I think we agree that mean temperature is a characteristic of the system, it is extremely stable and it is headed slowly upwards due to changes in the concentration of various gases in the atmosphere, and that movement can be deduced from a simple model.

                          Firstly, surface warming is not evenly distributed across the globe. The land is different from the sea (let’s not bother with the details at the moment). From that you deduce that the land surfaces will see a higher than global average increase in average temperature.

                          Secondly, surface temperatures at a place vary according to season and variations in the weather, and can be described by a normal distribution or ‘bell’ curve. A higher average means that this curve shifts sideways on a graph and produces many more record breaking events. This is why we are seeing all the hottest years now. Notice that the global average, modified slightly according to your place on the planet can be directly applied to you local weather patterns.

                          By the way, I had a look at what ‘external validity’ was. It seems to be about how generalizable the findings are. It seems to me that the global mean can be applied to local conditions.
                          *emphasis mine

                          Okay, sorry it took so long. We are finally in the same ball park - just not on the same team, yet.

                          No, we don't agree on the part I bolded. My question is why is that true? Why is the mean a rational generalization of the system?

                          External validity is basically whether or not the research/metric/experiment/et cetera is meaningful in the real world. Simply because we can use a metric doesn't mean we should (this comes up a LOT in statistical research and a lot more in survey research).

                          My question has never been 'can we use the mean' but 'should we use the mean'? And here I mean what is the justification for using the mean. (Note: 'Cause it seems to work is not a valid answer to this - when choosing a metric you (general) should know why you're choosing it before applying it to the data.)


                          The rest of this is just related commentary but not the question itself.

                          [For example, I can easily do a force calculation for a moving car - but if it isn't hitting anything, why do I care? It doesn't tell me anything about the air/fuel ratio - which is actually important if I want to know why the engine keeps back firing. In this example, f=ma is not a valid calculation simply because it doesn't address the actual question - never mind that my math is perfect! ]

                          This is why human sciences are fun - we have to ask this sort of thing constantly (and our subjects have the infuriating tendency to try and 'help' ).
                          "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


                          • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            *emphasis mine

                            Okay, sorry it took so long. We are finally in the same ball park - just not on the same team, yet.

                            No, we don't agree on the part I bolded. My question is why is that true? Why is the mean a rational generalization of the system?

                            External validity is basically whether or not the research/metric/experiment/et cetera is meaningful in the real world. Simply because we can use a metric doesn't mean we should (this comes up a LOT in statistical research and a lot more in survey research).

                            My question has never been 'can we use the mean' but 'should we use the mean'? And here I mean what is the justification for using the mean. (Note: 'Cause it seems to work is not a valid answer to this - when choosing a metric you (general) should know why you're choosing it before applying it to the data.)


                            The rest of this is just related commentary but not the question itself.

                            [For example, I can easily do a force calculation for a moving car - but if it isn't hitting anything, why do I care? It doesn't tell me anything about the air/fuel ratio - which is actually important if I want to know why the engine keeps back firing. In this example, f=ma is not a valid calculation simply because it doesn't address the actual question - never mind that my math is perfect! ]

                            This is why human sciences are fun - we have to ask this sort of thing constantly (and our subjects have the infuriating tendency to try and 'help' ).
                            I would say that the shift towards a higher mean temperature is a result that is expected from the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A scientist would want that result proved before delving into the details of climate change. Is the planet warming? If yes, what will happen to the climate? It is a fundamental result of the science of climate change.
                            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                            “not all there” - you know who you are

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                              I would say that the shift towards a higher mean temperature is a result that is expected from the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A scientist would want that result proved before delving into the details of climate change. Is the planet warming? If yes, what will happen to the climate? It is a fundamental result of the science of climate change.
                              Maybe - but that doesn't tell me that the mean is a valid measure for this.
                              "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


                              • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                                I would say that the shift towards a higher mean temperature is a result that is expected from the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A scientist would want that result proved before delving into the details of climate change. Is the planet warming? If yes, what will happen to the climate? It is a fundamental result of the science of climate change.
                                You might want to also try to get her to understand that a global mean temperature over time represents the net input/output balance between energy received from the sun and energy lost to space. The dynamics of the weather is how that energy redistributes itself in the system. There are also transfers of energy from the air to the sea, from the sea to the air, from the land to the air, from the air to the land. Over time however changes in that average air temperature tell the overall balance of energy in to energy out is changing. Up means we are retaining more heat. Down means we are losing heat. GHG is what changes that characteristic. More GHG, more heat retained. Less GHG, less heat retained. Without an atmosphere 'mean temperature' is less easy to define, for one thing there is no air temperature to measure, just raw surface temperature. That said, the temperature swings are much, much wider, yet the average is much lower because so much more energy is lost back into space.


                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X