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

[Teallaura]

There is an average surface temperature and it is about 14 degrees Centigrade. It does not change over the short term. It is not affected by time of day, or the seasons. Making it useful is a case of improving measurement techniques and gathering lots and lots of data. Easier nowadays with satellites, I think.

Except it doesn't tell us anything at all about the system - because it's an average. The mean skews if you look at it cross eyed.

Satellite data, as I understand it, is a big improvement on surface data - but I see no reason why that should make the mean any more externally valid.

[firstfloor]

Except it doesn't tell us anything at all about the system - because it's an average. The mean skews if you look at it cross eyed.

Satellite data, as I understand it, is a big improvement on surface data - but I see no reason why that should make the mean any more externally valid.

[Teallaura]

What I want to know is how an average is 'descriptive' of a highly complex system. I get that it's used as political shorthand - but I can't see any valid reason to use it - and political shorthand is not a valid reason, either.

[firstfloor]

What I want to know is how an average is 'descriptive' of a highly complex system. I get that it's used as political shorthand - but I can't see any valid reason to use it - and political shorthand is not a valid reason, either.

If the theory about greenhouse gases is correct, the average temperature will go up. If your measurements show that trend, or something else, you can verify or modify your theory. The data always describes real behaviour and you want your theoretical understanding to match closely so that you can look ahead to possible futures.

The warming of the biosphere is related to climate change but they are different features of the same system.

[Teallaura]

If the theory about greenhouse gases is correct, the average temperature will go up. If your measurements show that trend, or something else, you can verify or modify your theory. The data always describes real behaviour and you want your theoretical understanding to match closely so that you can look ahead to possible futures.

The warming of the biosphere is related to climate change but they are different features of the same system.

No, that doesn't answer the question - I'm not questioning the theory - I'm questioning the metric. Why is the mean a good metric for a complex system?

[Mountain Man]

Why is the mean a good metric for a complex system?

Because it gives them the answer they want.

(And if it doesn't, they simply "adjust" the data.)

[oxmixmudd]

If the theory about greenhouse gases is correct, the average temperature will go up. If your measurements show that trend, or something else, you can verify or modify your theory. The data always describes real behaviour and you want your theoretical understanding to match closely so that you can look ahead to possible futures.

The warming of the biosphere is related to climate change but they are different features of the same system.

I know teal is not listening, but what the average does is allow a low frequency signal (warming) to be extracted from a very noisy data set. It works the best if the noise is guassian, which is why so much effort is being put into finding biases like ToOB.

Jim

[firstfloor]

No, that doesn't answer the question - I'm not questioning the theory - I'm questioning the metric. Why is the mean a good metric for a complex system?

The weather can be predicted accurately only a few hours ahead. The further ahead you want to look, the coarser the prediction. If you want to see 50 years ahead, all complex detail is lost. The average is what you see if you look into the distance.

[Juvenal]

Satellite data, as I understand it, is a big improvement on surface data [...]

Satellite data are far more robust, but also far more difficult to work with technically, requiring discrimination between different frequencies in the spectrum in order to differentiate between different layers in the atmosphere. The improvement is the ability to gather more data more quickly.

But the overall thrust here is incoherent. Satellite data for the surface are calibrated using surface data (and calibrated for higher layers using data from weather balloons). They can't "improve" on those measurements, just extend them.

[oxmixmudd]

The weather can be predicted accurately only a few hours ahead. The further ahead you want to look, the coarser the prediction. If you want to see 50 years ahead, all complex detail is lost. The average is what you see if you look into the distance.

More impotantly, it allows you to see long term trends over the 'noise' of daily, seasonal, yearly and decadal variations due to the dynamic nature of the system.

Jim

[Sparko]

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

How about instead of using ad hominem* you actually tell me why I am wrong?


*see? I do know what ad hominem means.

[Sparko]

ok - I now see how you think it 'supports' global warming - and in that light, it is funny

Ah so it is funny when it supports your belief.

[One Bad Pig]

Satellite data are far more robust, but also far more difficult to work with technically, requiring discrimination between different frequencies in the spectrum in order to differentiate between different layers in the atmosphere. The improvement is the ability to gather more data more quickly.

But the overall thrust here is incoherent. Satellite data for the surface are calibrated using surface data (and calibrated for higher layers using data from weather balloons). They can't "improve" on those measurements, just extend them.

Interesting.

[oxmixmudd]

Ah so it is funny when it supports your belief.

No Sparko, seen the way most of you saw it at first, it's just funny regardless. I didn't see it having that meaning the first time I saw it. That is what changed.

But It's funny in the different context than what I originally observed because of how it indirectly indicates the warming through the move to the need for less and less clothing - underwear - on women, who are traditionally 'cold' at night, and towards forms more commonly seen in swimsuits on women in tropical climes. IOW, it has more raw humorous value seen that way, and likely I'd have seen it as funny even if rogue had used it to mock AGW, though I'd have still been annoyed at supporting pseudo-science with it.

Had I initially seen it as above, my comment would have been more " - yes that is funny, but why are you ..."


Jim

[Cow Poke]

No Sparko, seen the way most of you saw it at first, it's just funny regardless. I didn't see it having that meaning the first time I saw it. That is what changed.

But It's funny in the different context than what I originally observed because of how it indirectly indicates the warming through the move to the need for less and less clothing - underwear - on women, who are traditionally 'cold' at night, and towards forms more commonly seen in swimsuits on women in tropical climes. IOW, it has more raw humorous value seen that way, and likely I'd have seen it as funny even if rogue had used it to mock AGW, though I'd have still been annoyed at supporting pseudo-science with it.

Had I initially seen it as above, my comment would have been more " - yes that is funny, but why are you ..."


Jim

The actually funny part is that the "graph" has nothing to do with the need for less clothing due to the earth warming, but everything to do with modesty decreasing and the sexual revolution advancing. That was the joke.