|
Post by marchesarosa on May 11, 2011 5:35:09 GMT 1
Here is Chiefio explaining what distinguishes his viewpoint from that of the people, like "lukewarmer" Steve Mosher and the whole of the IPCC climate Establishment, who think global average temperature means something important. The following is in the comments section of his Article Southern States Have No Warming chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/southern-states-have-no-warming/I’m from the “understand the details and mechanisms first” school. Mosh et.al. are from the “get the big picture first” (and model it) school. I think they miss essential elements in the “glossing and averaging”. They think me foolish for wasting time on minutia…But great structures fall when their foundations are one sand…
So I look at things like “the average of temperatures is not a temperature” and it causes me to wonder why they spend so much time looking at averages of temperatures as though they were a temperture… I’ve taken endless rocks for trying to a) Point that out and b) use the average for non-temperature purposes.
So point out that the Global Average Temperature is NOT a temperature and that a 0.1 C rise of it is not in the units of C and you get flailed. Then say “You can use it for interesting forensics about the data structure” and you get flailed again for “using an average of temperatures instead of anomalies”. Say that the average of a bunch of temperatures has lost it’s meaning and you get branded an idiot. Yet an average of temperatures is still not a temperature…
(Easy proof: Take an ice cube and a pot of boiling water. Average their temperatures and you get 50. Yet NOTHING in the system is at the temperature of 50 C. There is no 50 C temperature to be found. It is a statistical characteristic of the two numbers, not a temperature.)
Another example?
Folks constantly treat temperature as a proxy for heat. They talk about “global warming” of 2 C. But heat is not measured in temperature degrees. You just can’t do that. It’s a “units error”. Basically broken at the level of physics.
Raise that point and you get either blank stares or dismissive sniditude.
In that context where so many fundamental errors of physics and simple clean thought are made daily by almost ALL the participants, it’s not at all surprising to me that you would be “confused” by the pronouncements…
I periodically point out those sorts of issues… but then even I will make a graph of “average temperatures” changing and talk about the “lack of warming”… as you will not be part of the dialog if you do not speak in their (foreign) language…
Otherwise you could only say:
Temperature is NOT a proxy for heat, and averaging a bunch of temperatures doesn’t give you a valid temperature anyway, so the whole process is built on a farce.
And then you are done. Time to go home and take a nap.
Not much point in that. (Though I do it about 2 times a year in one place or another, like here and now).
BTW, that’s part of why I like to look at individual thermometer records in individual places. They DO let you make statements about warming or cooling as that place is either hotter or colder.
It is also true that there is some (sometimes strong) correlation between thermometers over large areas, so an average of them will tend to reflect the action of the individual devices as well. As a PROXY for temperature change, it can be illustrative (as long as you don’t change the insturments too much, like that 1990 Great Dying of Thermometers).
And finally, while dew point, humitity, rain, snow, ice, etc. all confound the temperature / heat correlation, there is still a basic connection as the total mass of the planet is more or less constant and over the course of decades one can hope that the rainfall doesn’t change too much…
Then again, one look at Memphis Tenn. this week gives the l ie to that one…
So I “play the game” all the while complaining that the Ref needs glasses and the “3 point line” is a perversion of the rules and … about that “infield fly rule”…
Hopefully that hasn’t caused too much more confusion…
Thanks to the Chiefio. You always acquire some useful insights from this man!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 11, 2011 12:08:32 GMT 1
More interesting articles from the Chiefio What the Giss?11 May 2011 by E.M.Smith chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/what-the-giss/Regime Change in Alaska9 May 2011 by E.M.Smith chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/regime-change-in-alaska/This man is an invaluable guide to the arcane GISS manipulations of James Hansen et al. I came across his "digging" into the surface station data very early in my personal journey into supposed Anthropogenic Global Warming and his writings have been very useful. I recommend him to all with a genuine interest in understanding the failings of "global" temperature measurement.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 11, 2011 15:41:27 GMT 1
This is frankly PANTS.
An 'average of a set of temperatures' is just that, and SHOULD be in same units as the things you are averaging (else makes no sense). Hence complaining that it shouldn't be in degrees C is total nonsense.
In fact, if you really want to be totally pedantic, even a measured temperature isn't a valid temperture, because the output of your measuring device is always going to be subject to some error, plus averaged over space and time to some extent, so the measured temperature is as much a fiction as the average global temp, if you really want to play silly buggers in this way.............
ALL of it is statistical, in the strict sense, so NONE of it is a 'temperature' in the sense that this idiot wants to define temperature.
Even if it isn't, the word average in front gives you a slight clue that we aren't talking about temperature per se but AVERAGE temperature.
Of course it IS! ANY idiot can see that...................
If I measure the height of members of a class in fathoms, I MUST express the average in fathoms. If I measure the height of the SAMe class in inches, then the average MUST also have the same units to be meaningful. If I want to compare the average heights of two different classes, I must compare them using the SAME units for it to be meaningful. Hence if I want to use an average in any meanigful way, I HAVE to keep track of what units I am using.
Similarly for comparison of two different averages, only makes sense if both expressed in same units.
As all physicists know -- what did you measure and WHAT are the units......................
I could also digress and explain that fundamentally, temperature is ONLY a statistical quantity in the first place, hence complaining that stats messes up the temp units is daft on a second level, since the whole concept is statistical at the root.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 11, 2011 17:26:03 GMT 1
Higher temp means outside is WARMER, and I don't need the long-johns. I don't see why anyone would object to the simple usage that higher temps mean the environment is warmer...............
I think chiefio has got a major screw loose on this one, despite his claims about 'fundamental errors of physics'. ONE prime fundamental thing drummed into us when doing measurements in physics was KEEP TRACK of the UNITS, whether computing averages or not.
As I said before, his comments about stats are all nonsense anyway, since temperature itself is fundamentally a statistical concept. Take a sample of gas at 20 degrees C -- I can GUARANTEE that you can take that gas and focus in on individual molecules and not find a single molecule that can be said to have a temperature of 20 degrees C, since the very concept only applies to collections of molecules and their AVERAGE kinetic energy. Hence taking another average on top of that is relatively benign...............................
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 11, 2011 18:18:37 GMT 1
I might also add that the chiefios comments make one common (and fatal mistake) -- it ASSUMES that there are simple reasons why climate scientists are wrong, hence this laughable average temp isn't a temp line to try and knock global average temp off its perch.
Whereas there may be good scientific or statistical reasons why measuring global average temp or predicting it isn't sensible (note I said MAY be), it won't be for the reasons that chiefio gives.
It's the difference between the climate scientists are OBVIOUSLY wrong/stupid/corrupt that conspiracy theorists prefer, and the climate scientists are reasonable scientists, but possibly totally wrong line that an actual scientist would accept. Whilst adding that if they are wrongm, they aren't going to be wrong for any simple reasons! Or at least only reason that might only appear to be simple after the fact, because if it was that obvious that they were wrong, they would have spotted it themselves.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 12, 2011 13:12:26 GMT 1
I'm afraid (despite searching) that I was unable to find the original post. Since M seems to find this stuff so illuminating, perhaps she could provide a link, since I'd rather have it from the horses mouth if I'm accusing someone of making a great big boo-boo....................
As regards wittering on about average temp not being a temperature..............No one claimed it was, hence word average out the front. An average of temperatures, easily computed.
What it might MEAN is another matter, and depends on context.
So, if I take a pint of water at 20 degrees C, and a pint of water at 22 degree C, I can merrily compute mean temperature (averaged wrt volume), to be 21 degrees C. Which is the temperature I would get if I mixed the two without heat loss, without additional heat added via stirring, and assuming heat capacity approximately constant over that range of temps. Hence in this case, the average temp can predict a real temp.
In any other case -- taking an average (first order statistics) is just the first thing you do when you have a population of measurements (time series or otherwise), and are trying to decide if one population is significantly different from another. Its as simple as it gets when comparing anything to anything else. Complaining that's it's not valid, or shouldn't have the same UNITS as the things you average over is just trying to remove the validity of most of quantitative science, in the vain attempt to diss the concept of global average temperature as used in climate science. Baby and bath water are the phrases that spring to mind.
but before I accuse Chiefio of ever worse crimes against reason, I should state that I'd be prepared to retract if someone could point me at the source, because we all know that anyone can be misquoted or quoted out of context...............
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 12, 2011 16:55:57 GMT 1
We've been over this before. As laymen we couldn't get at the 'real results' that led to Hansen et al 's blood red coloured map of the world. Then NASA decided that it would fly 'unmanned aircraft' around the globe and get some new data for computing temperature, wind movements and other. Has anything been heard of the data? This has been dished up as new? data, but we had this, this time last year. www.prweb.com/releases/2011/5/prweb8416972.htm Anyway, there's lots of pro's and con's but if it's true, what's the cure, and more importantly, will the patient take the medicine? StuartG The Chinese have the idea, go along with it and see if some money can be made.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 12, 2011 18:42:44 GMT 1
Unless you have either a jolly good and very large RANDOM sample or a very accurately STRATIFIED sample of locations round the world where you measure the temperature the whole concept of an "average" global temperature is meaningless. I have tried to explain this to STA before but she was as obtuse then as she remains now.
It is especially MEANINGLESS if the selection of places used to compute the "global" "average" varies over time. All these criticisms apply to the GHCN network used by Russell Vose and James Hansen who then further fiddle with them to provide the GISS redhot arctic required by Hansen's Climate Catastrophism.
You don't need to be a polymath to grasp these matters.
Anomalies from a cool base-line like 1951-1980 have their own problems of comparison especially when combined with varying sample size and varying locations. GISS temperature "measurement" a mess! Is it so very hard for STA to admit this? If she were an engineer I would not let her near my car. If she were a painter I would not allow here near my window frames! Nossir!
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on May 12, 2011 21:05:22 GMT 1
If she were a lecturer, I wouldn't let her near my children.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 13, 2011 14:03:21 GMT 1
Which is a totally DIFFERENT point, I note, to the rubbish that chiefio is coming out with in the above quote. Which was what I was talking about, those daft claims about an average temperature not being a temperature, or not being measured in the same units.
The point being, if someone can come out with nonsense like that, why should you believe whatever else they have to say about the statistical validity of the global mean temperature?
I note the failure to provide a reference, despite being asked.
I note again the daft claim that you don't have to be a polymath -- sorry but stats is hard, and someone who is claiming that the concept of an average is meaningless isn't the sort of person to ask when it comes to abtruse statistics.
So, M do you still stand by the validity of this statement?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 11:51:34 GMT 1
Does a Global Temperature Exist?
by Christopher Essex Department of Applied Mathematics University of Western Ontario
Ross McKitrick Department of Economics University of Guelph
Bjarne Andresen Niels Bohr Institute University of Copenhagen
Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics (in press, June 2006)
Abstract Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed. Short title: Global Temperature? www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 17, 2011 12:06:52 GMT 1
Which still misses the point. Although there MAY be issues about the statistical validity and meaning of a mean temperature, that was NOT the argument that chiefio seemed to be using, but rather some rather kack-handed simplistic argument trying to make the point that an average temperature was not ever meaningful.
Still waiting for a reference for chiefios comments...................
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 17, 2011 13:05:44 GMT 1
I've read the Intro to the paper you reference, and seems to me that chiefio has attempted a grossly simkplified and probably misunderstood version of their arguments. SO, as regards average temperature not being a temperature, its actually a subtle point about intensive thermodynamic variables. But I don't see that it matters that much, because as long as we stick to it clearly being an AVERAGE across a temperature field, what's the problem? Yes, we have to show that that average tells us something useful about changes in that temperature field. It's just, it seems to me, a fairly trivial point about physics versus statistics. And that some people have glossed over or failed to understand the difference. Ditto their comment that people don't necessarily understand that temperature and energy aren't the same thing, which is just a point about heat capacity not being constant. Section 3 seems reasonable, pointing out (I think) that there is no physical reason for preferring one average over temperature to another. I note that they use the glassof ice water and cup of coffee average example -- a MUCH better example than ice and water, since the problem with ice is you have specific heat to consider, not just temperature. Actually, quite a simple little paper, and I broadly agree with their mathematical point. Note that they aren't saying that there might not be a meaningful statistic you can construct from a temperature field, but that since there are MANY types of average, which can show contradictory trends on the same data, you really need to justify the one you end up using. Although lets face it, any physicist faced with such data would probably plump for area-normalised old-fashioned mean as a first attempt at something useful. Real Climate has an interesting discussion of this paper, and seem to think it is either trivial or misleading (or both). www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/does-a-global-temperature-exist/
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 17, 2011 15:35:02 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 17, 2011 15:44:39 GMT 1
I am sure it is possible to criticise the concept and utility of a Global Average Temperature from many different standpoints, STA.
It doesn't exist and moreover can't be measured, about sums it up for me, what with there being no acceptable sample of measuring points, what with one half of the globe being in darkness and the other light, what with the two hemispheres enjoying different seasons.
An average of crap is still crap no matter how high the error bars are set..
Now, talk about the temperature in Leeds from year to year and we are talking something that could be worthwhile. But, of course, that could not be used as the hammer to drive home the bolt of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis through the heads of the gullible, could it?
|
|