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

[Sparko]

I thought that much was patently obvious. But I guess when you've got less of a sense of humor than a militant third wave feminist...

So why were you supporting pseudoscience?

[firstfloor]

[lilpixieofterror]

[Cow Poke]

sun.jpeg

[lilpixieofterror]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39387[/ATTACH]

We could also point out the sun is steadily getting hotter.

[Cow Poke]

We could also point out the sun is steadily getting hotter.

Perhaps the environmental activists can find the thermostat to dial it down a wee bit.

[firstfloor]

I am not saying that equilibrium conditions are static. We know that because the earth itself, even the rocks are not static, and plants and animals change the environment. For example, if the Arctic ice cap melts, less radiation is reflected off the surface because it is darker in colour; the ground or the water warms up, and as it does, it radiates more energy into space, until once again the planet radiates as much as it absorbs, but at a now higher temperature. There is a lag, but that is the direction the system will go.

[lilpixieofterror]

I am not saying that equilibrium conditions are static. We know that because the earth itself, even the rocks are not static, and plants and animals change the environment. For example, if the Arctic ice cap melts, less radiation is reflected off the surface because it is darker in colour; the ground or the water warms up, and as it does, it radiates more energy into space, until once again the planet radiates as much as it absorbs, but at a now higher temperature. There is a lag, but that is the direction the system will go.

[firstfloor]

I agree.

[Teallaura]

FF2, let's assume I grant all of that - what does it have to do with the external validity of using an average as a metric for a highly complex system? From what I can see, all you've done with this post is SUPPORT MY ARGUMENT.

[oxmixmudd]

Well I have seen various highs and lows as far as Maximum temperatures on the moon, so I could calculate the average temperature of the moon from anywhere of -30F to +40F, just by picking and choosing which max/min temperatures to use, but that really doesn't tell you anything, as you would be hard pressed to actually find 10F on the moon anywhere. And the surface temperature varies on the lit side depending on the latitude also. Averages don't really help when you can just play with the data and get a wide range of "averages" - and if you can do it so easily on the moon, imagine the margin of error on the Earth, a planet with actual weather?

No - you couldn't. But that you think you could is informative. That lack of comprehension here is getting somewhat mind boggling. Why are you guys making yourselves stupid just to support the idea AGW is a farce? I know you are not ignorant enough to think what you just said makes any sense at all - right Sparko? Come on, lets try to at least argue at the level of what we know.

Jim

[Teallaura]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]39378[/ATTACH]

<rubs eyes>

Obviously, I got up too early this afternoon.

Okay, so how do you read a bloomers graph? Must be a guy thing...

[One Bad Pig]

<rubs eyes>

Obviously, I got up too early this afternoon.

Okay, so how do you read a bloomers graph? Must be a guy thing...

The size of bloomers goes down as the temperature goes up over time.

[Teallaura]

Well I have seen various highs and lows as far as Maximum temperatures on the moon, so I could calculate the average temperature of the moon from anywhere of -30F to +40F, just by picking and choosing which max/min temperatures to use, but that really doesn't tell you anything, as you would be hard pressed to actually find 10F on the moon anywhere. And the surface temperature varies on the lit side depending on the latitude also. Averages don't really help when you can just play with the data and get a wide range of "averages" - and if you can do it so easily on the moon, imagine the margin of error on the Earth, a planet with actual weather?

^Yeah, that.

I don't even see using the median for this - it's not really telling you anything. Tells you nothing about temperature or energy ( Was that what FF2 was on about?) because it's the center of a mess of varying categories (here climates or climate zones). A mean (grudgingly allowing this) or a median might be useful within a given category - but not crossing a number of them.

[Teallaura]

Except that wasn't 'pseudo-science', Jim. It was a JOKE.

Wait, were we supposed to take the bloomers graph seriously?

Dang, I need coffee...