|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 17, 2011 16:07:50 GMT 1
Nope, I'm afraid. Dunno where he gets the idea that the average of a set of temperatures isn't measured in degrees C (or kelvin to be more precise). As I said before, hs ice-cube example is doubly misleading because of specific heat. Average (whichever one you pick) of a set of measurements has got to have same units as the original measurements (apart from case of harmonic mean, where you average 1 over the measurement, so you'd better take KELVIN else possible zeros mess you up big time!), and I don't know why chiefio would think otherwise. As I said, I think he has taken the academic paper referenced above, and got it a bit confused. As I think I've also said, the actual objections to global mean temperature aren't that simple as chiefio seems to make out, nor are they that interesting. It's one just ONE of many possible first-order statistical measures you could imagine taking to try and quantify differences in the temperature fields when you have noisy data. Aside: by first -order here, I don't mean rank measures, but first-order being the mean (first moment) , whereas second-order usually means things like correlation. You can find sites where people get all Bayesian as regards the stats: wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3558But even there, glib claims that the global average temp isn;t a temp get short shrift: In the discussion there, the paper cited above is referred to several times, and again given short shrift. Yes, it isn't a temperature in the strictly thermodynamical sense, but who cares? The point about temperature itself being fundamentally statistical in nature (AVERAGE kinetc energy remember) is also raised. So seems to me that those who don't actually understand the fine point of the physics/statistics distinction, and who haven't a clue what Bayes was on about, just repeat 'it isn't a temperature, hence all pants' at every opportunity, but run away when asked to explain further. It's JUST one possible measure, the simplest one, the obvious one that you'd compute with this sort of noisy data, and the one that gives you SIMPLE graphs when you are trying to convince politicians and the public. Let's face it, anything MORE complicated that showed AGW effects would probably get classed by our friendly sceptics as just some artifact of the complicated statistical processing, and people would be asked, if it's so obvious, why didn't you just compute the mean................................ I'm afraid chiefio gets 0/10 for basic physics, despite his protestations.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 17, 2011 18:09:15 GMT 1
Didn't you GET the arguments about chiefio being MISTAKEN? Obviously not.
Averages is such a BASIC tool of science (ANY science), that claiming you can't meaningfully average in the special case of temperature is just total bollocks.
As I suspected, we don't actually have any interest in any discussion and learning and understanding on here so far, just I'll pick which opinion I like and stick to it. One blogger and one academic paper seem to say something I like, so I'll believe that, and bugger any arguments for the other side, criticisms of the actual paper, detailed arguments as to why that blogger has got things a bit wrong, even if we did accept that paper as at all interesting.
And I didn't get into the anomalies issue.....................
To summarise, if you really accept the simplistic (and totally mistaken) averages of temp are wrong line, then you have to reject ALL temperatures, since ANY measured temperature is some sort of average anyway, and temperature itself is a statistical concept at th root (AVERAGE kinetic energy if you know any statistical physics). Hence M, if you really take this seriously, you don't believe in ANY temperature, which seems a rather extreme position....................
Except that is in effect what is already done when it comes to the computed anomalies that are actually used!
Anyway, that is a DIFFERENT point to the point that chiefio was attempting to make in the first post, which was not anything to do with averaging by area, or what to do about seasons, or any of that, but just the basic concept of averaging.
Which was also what the paper was about, the fact that PHYSICS doesn't define one unique average that you should use, but statistically you have a choice, and then what the average means.
I do wish you'd stop moving the goal-posts. If even you can't argue in support of what you originally pasted, then what's the point of even pretending that ANY of this is actually a discussion?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 17, 2011 19:18:33 GMT 1
Averages of averages or averages of what is a very inadequate sample in the first place?
Sorry! Doesn't work for me STA.
You're too easily pleased.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 18, 2011 14:59:38 GMT 1
Averages of averages or averages of what is a very inadequate sample in the first place? Sorry! Doesn't work for me STA. You're too easily pleased. M, you STILL haven't answered the points about chiefios original post, which YOU originally posted as the start of this thread! The point being (whatever other points there are to make about averaging when analysing noisy data) that his points are MISTAKEN. To summarise: 1) The point about an average of temperatures not being a temperature is irrelevant, even Essex et al concede this. Their main point is not that it may or may not be a useful index, but that given that you can average in many ways and there is no PHYSICAL reason for choosing one over another, that you then also need to justify why one particular average actually works (or not). Thay also aren't, as far as I can tell, saying that temperatures should never be averaged, just that you need to justify the particular average. 2) Chiefios point about the average of temperatures not even being measured in degrees. I think he just got plain confused here, because I can't find any further 'explanation' as to why he thinks this. 3) chiefios misleading example of the ice-cube (specific heat). So, the question is, do you still stick by what chiefio said as being useful and true, and can you actually ANSWER the points I have made about where I think he has misunderstood what Essex et al had to say (leaving aside for the moment whether Essex et al were justified). So, please don't side-track things by bringing in other issues about averaging, let's just stick to the first point that you yourself introduced. Are you willing to actually discuss it, do you still support it, or not? As our dear moderator says, this board is supposed to be for DISCUSSION of science, and even though cut and pastes may be prolific or entertaining, it kind of misses the point if you're not prepared to argue and discuss what you've posted when someone raises legitimate arguments against it. So, let's take it slow -- do we think chiefios comments about average temps are correct and defensible. If not, then we could perhaps move onto the more complicated issues, but starting from a firm basis. Except when you have a small sample, an average with large error bars is the most sensible thing you can do! Its the way the number of samples enters into the size of the error-bar in simple stats. Hence the sample size is in there, because everyone knows when quoting an estimate, you have to quote the error as well. So, a small sample size doesn't give you a bad average, it just gives you a large error-bar on that average.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 18, 2011 15:29:49 GMT 1
The assumption is that the "samples" , i.e surface stations' measured readings which are adjusted, homogenised and then averaged and averaged again and again is telling us something of value. I don't think so.
You are too easily satisfied with dross, STA.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on May 18, 2011 20:12:41 GMT 1
100% correct Marchessa. I've been mulling over the "warmest winter on record" met office fiasco. They take the fourteen warmest days between November and the end of March, average them and spit that out as a representation of how warm/cold the winter has been. Utter bollocks. You could have a few weeks of warm southerly wind in the beginning of november and at the end of march while the rest of the winter was savagely cold like we had this winter and the twats would be recording that it's been exceptionally warm. I'd love to have had that mong, Slingo on the deck of my boat in Dec/Jan/Feb. Brutal.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 19, 2011 10:37:59 GMT 1
Yet again, you keep trying to divert things into other issues.
The question I keep asking (and that you refuse to answer), is whether you STILL stand by what you posted when you opened this thread? That chiefio is correct with all his wibbling about average temperature.
Because, let's face it, IF you now realise it's actually wrong, would be polite to say so -- especially since you are so hard on climate scientists who supposedly don't retract when they have got it wrong, and been shown to have got it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 21, 2011 10:09:45 GMT 1
I've read all your irrelevant blather and bluster, STA.
Hands up anyone who thinks measuring the global mean temperature is analogous to averaging the (known) heights of 30 school children.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 25, 2011 13:30:35 GMT 1
SIMPLE, straightforward question M, and you declined and obfuscated.
I repeat my previous post.
Chalk this up as yet another attempt to have a reasonable debate with M about ONE simple little point, and she won't play nicely.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 25, 2011 13:47:29 GMT 1
It is not obfuscation to point out that garbage in (GHCN surface station land temp measurements with composition, size, location, altitude of sample varying over time and with overwhelming well-known poor siting problems PLUS UHI) means garbage out and no amount of statistical "sophistication" can fix it.
Without accurate long term temperature measurement (global or otherwise) the AGW hypothesis hasn't a leg to stand on.
You'll be telling us treemometers work, next! And there was no Mediaeval Warm Period.
If you want to argue with the Chiefio go and argue with HIM, STA, you know where to find him. I'm not his proxy! I have no idea what you are talking about most of the time. Perhaps you could learn something about clarity of argument from the Chiefio?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 26, 2011 13:23:33 GMT 1
I don't want to argue with him, I want YOUR opinion as to his comments that you choose to post here as some sort of useful explanation of something or other.
You posted it, you thought of it as useful, but you seem totally unable to actually defend it. Is that it, you just think it is good because chiefio posted it? Despite the fact that I've put forward several reason why I think it is at worst wrong, at best misleading.
Why are you so reluctant to actually DISCUSS issues that you yourself RAISE?
Except you aren't even prepared to engage in debate!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 26, 2011 16:01:02 GMT 1
I have defended it. Just not in the terms you want. Tough.
I don't "debate" with people like you about climate, STA. Waste of effort.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 26, 2011 16:59:28 GMT 1
Exceptn you specifically DIDN'T defend the actual stuff you pasted!
Which was what I was trying to show, so thankyou for proving my point, that you are unwilling to actually debate or discuss period!
What 'people like me'? I just made some points about what you posted, specific, detailed points about what was actually said, and you refused to consider them. Because it was quite clear that in this particular piece (NOT on the general issue of global mean temps, just the specific points that YOU thought worth pasting) chiefio was talking nonsense.
I don't know why you're so scared to admit this. People can be mistaken in one post after all (I think I can see how chiefio has misunderstood the Exeter et al. paper for starters), but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong on other points.
Just that I think it matters that if you are advocating a particular position, you need to keep your facts straight, and ADMIT when you have got things wrong. You are very fond of castigating climate researchers when they don't do this, but seem unwilling to do the same for the bloggers you seem to like.
Interesting as well that you seem to refuse to debate with people like me, even when I'm being polite, yet castigate climate researchers when they try the same thing...........................
Seems a little hypocritical to me, as a personal opinion.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on May 26, 2011 18:40:18 GMT 1
You mean people who know what they are talking about? Presumably this is also why you never listen to the opinions of real climate scientists.
It's blindingly obvious to anyone reading this topic that you are not able to reply , so of course you resort to bluster. You'd do yourself some credit if you were just honest and admitted that you'd made a mistake. Based on past experience though, I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 28, 2011 18:08:03 GMT 1
|
|