A MUST SEE! Global Warming Swindle!

POSTED BY: CrevanReaver
UPDATED: Friday, July 3, 2009 16:48
VIEWED: 11643
PAGE 5 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

BYTEMITE

Saturday, June 27, 2009 2:42 PM

It's really not simulated data. It's measured data. The reason the numbers on the right side range from -0.6 to 0.6 isn't because they're computer simulated, but because some reference temperature has been subtracted from the measured temperatures, in order to give a better idea of measured change. This is explained in the description on the link.

But, clearly you don't agree with that. If you don't agree with the graphed measurements, I believe there was a link to the numbers on that same link, I'll go check later. If not, they'll be easy enough to find. The site's down and I'm leaving to go on a hike soon.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, June 27, 2009 2:47 PM

In your link: that's absolute surface temperature. Not average measured surface temperature. Okay. When you measure temperature, it's in a constant state of flux. It's a bit like a car that's accelerating (changing velocity). Say you measure the car's velocity twice while it's accelerating, and you want to find it's absolute velocity it was going at a certain time between those two times of measurement. The absolute velocity is not going to be the average of two measurements equidistant and time apart, because acceleration is a curve. So instead, you have to integrate to find the absolute velocity at a particular time. A good example of this analogy in terms of temperature are the Newtonian Cooling Differential Equations. And yes, they are a pain, and easiest to do on computers because the sheer number of factors involved in them are ridiculous.

However. While the absolute temperature is only a snapshot, you can still take multiple measurements of temperature in different places and at different times and find an average temperature, and it's a valid measurement. Just like you can can calculate the average velocity of a car over some distance and time, regardless of the acceleration (change).

As such, average temperature as I linked to still fits within possibility, and is also a reasonable measurement, even considering the link you posted.

EDIT: Bah, NOAA's server is still down for whatever reason. I'll check later tonight for the numbers link, and barring that, tomorrow.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 28, 2009 2:09 AM

Quote:
I don't think that. See, I don't think in terms of expertise. So I don't compare which has more expertise, and who I should trust more. I trust the data, period. If it is not there, I see no reason to jump to conclusions.

I guess I was being unclear myself, here. I was not saying one organization or other has less expertise, I was saying different agencies in the government have different ways of thinking.

When I posted the link to NOAA, you continued to abscribe to a perspective that you claimed was common to the DoE. Hence my question.

But I understand where you're coming from now, and apologize for the confusion.

On a side note, still no damn connection to that page I just linked. Isn't that just the way of things, right when when you need something...

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 28, 2009 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It's really not simulated data. It's measured data. The reason the numbers on the right side range from -0.6 to 0.6 isn't because they're computer simulated, but because some reference temperature has been subtracted from the measured temperatures, in order to give a better idea of measured change. This is explained in the description on the link.

It's simulated data mixed with some measured data. All simulations do that--use measured data as input for the simulated output. That reference temperature you are talking about? That is simulated data called a "climatology." It serves as the standard ZERO baseline for comparing annual global mean temperatures, which is calculated by using computer modeling of some measured data mixed with extrapolated data. It is explained in the link I sent.

It doesn't give a better idea of the measured change. What it does is make an otherwise insignificant change of measured data appear significant by adding computer simulated adjustments.

Let me rephrase my question this way.

What WAS the global mean surface air temperature last year? What was it a hundred years ago? In degrees celcius? What is the standard error, that is, plus or minus how many degrees celcius?

The most common absolute temperature used to estimate a climatology is 14 degrees celcius. So let's say 100 years ago, the annual global mean was 14 degrees celcius. Now, it is 0.6 degrees higher: 14.6 degrees celcius. Consider the two following scenarios.

1898: 14 degrees celcius ± 0.5 degrees
2008: 14.6 degrees celcius ± 0.5 degrees
Wow, that looks like a really meaningful change.

OR...

1898: 14 degrees celcius ± 10 degrees
2008: 14.6 degrees celcius ± 10 degrees.
Wow, that looks like a random chance fluctuation that is completely meaningless.

You see? The standard error is everything in interpreting a mean.

What computer modeling does is it erases the huge variance in temperatures throughout the globe, throughout the year. This erases the huge standard error involved and artificially creates a teeny, weeny standard error to make the smallest change significant. They use computer adjustments to artificially create the first scenario.

--------------

As they say: There are 3 types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:15 AM

Right, I understand you're waiting for me to give you the numbers and errors. I'm waiting for the link to start working again so I can look for them.

However, even if the reference temperature were never subtracted from the measured data, the measured data is still intact. The subtraction of the reference temperature does not remove the change illustrated, unless there were some mischief going on with the errors of the measurements as you suggested.

And let me just say, point blank, that measurement error exceeding one degree Celsius, let alone ten degrees Celsius, would be very unlikely, seeing as how even a mercury thermometer measures to at least one degree Celsius of accuracy.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:22 AM

Wow. A lot of big words floatin' around this thread.
It's getting warmer. Is that too simple?

The laughing Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So instead, you have to integrate to find the absolute velocity at a particular time. A good example of this analogy in terms of temperature are the Newtonian Cooling Differential Equations. And yes, they are a pain, and easiest to do on computers because the sheer number of factors involved in them are ridiculous.

I understand what you are saying, but that is not what they are doing when they calculate a climatology. A climatology is not "average measured surface temperature." They are not trying to find an absolute in constant change using complex calculus and differential equations. They are trying to find an average, given complex weights of different factors. They are saying, you can just compare averages if one weather station is at a higher altitude than the other, or has more dry days than the other, or has more cloud cover than the other. You have to compensate and weight those factors. You have to guess what the weather station might say, had it been at the same altitude with the same cloud cover and dry days as the other.

What's the difference? Subjectivity. The calculations you discussed are fairly objective. The way a climatology is calculated suggests a large amount of subjectivity--that is, for science.

Quote:
However. While the absolute temperature is only a snapshot, you can still take multiple measurements of temperature in different places and at different times and find an average temperature, and it's a valid measurement.

I agree completely. And if that is what they did, simply measured and averaged, and found a statistically significant change in mean temperatures over the years, I would be much more eager to jump on the GW bandwagon.

BTW, I wanted to say how much I am enjoying conversing with you. Though we disagree, and you even feel disparaged by me at times (with my apologies because that was not my intention), you have been uncommonly civil and intelligent in your arguments. Thank you.

Again, I apologize if I come across as an arrogant ass. I am a bit short on social skills when I am taking on an argument by the horns, as most folks here on RWED can attest. I mean well.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:46 AM

I wasn't referring to the reference temperature when I wrote about the difference between absolute temperatures. I wrote it in regards to the measured temperature data, which consists of a lot of measurements taken that have then been averaged.

I think I keep misunderstanding what you're saying. Go me. :/

But, I now understand you were posting that link in response to the use of a reference temperature.

As for arrogance, no, I haven't really felt that from you. I almost thought *I* was being arrogant by posting that explanation about absolute versus average temperature. I was going to leave it out, but I wasn't sure just what your background here is.

And I also have not meant to offend you... Although I have been making some assumptions about where you're coming from that have possibly been unfounded and unfair, and I'm not proud of myself for jumping to those conclusions. I'm sorry for that.

But I think civility in any debate is important, because otherwise both sides of the argument undermine themselves. I think this is particularly true in a scientific debate where impartiality and sound judgment are key. Everyone means well in an argument, if we weren't concerned we would not argue.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:59 AM

Gave up on NOAA, went to NASA.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

The numbers given are in 0.01 degrees Celsius, and the error is implicit at +/- 0.001 degrees Celsius. They are given as the difference from the climatological temperature that you say is subjective, however, the temperatures can be converted back to their original, unadjusted measured temperature by adding the subtracted temperature, 14C.

The data has been plotted to produce a similar graph, as seen here.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

The following link explains where the numbers came from: I used the temperatures from meteorlogical stations only. Temperatures for a month, and then a year, are averaged from many measurements from the record of the particular meteorology station. Statistically, the only adjustment I can find is that significant outliers beyond two standard deviations have been removed.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Wow. A lot of big words floatin' around this thread.
It's getting warmer. Is that too simple?

Don't worry about it Chris, my head hurts too. ._. I normally spend my time just typing up reports, and I've had to dig through the old rusty memory for a lot of this.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE