Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@Ionus,

Thanks for the insult but let me post what YOU said

Quote:

Thats right. An increase in a high and a low does not indicate a rise in temp.

Since the increase in high/low doesn't indicate a rise in temperature then you should be able to show the following.

Quote:

Explain how a winter day that has a low of -6 and a high of -2 can be warmer than a summer day that has a low of 16 and a high of 22.

If on the other hand an increase in high/low DOES indicate a rise in temperature then I could understand why you don't want to defend your statement.

2 Replies

@parados,

In regard to this argument, most of the time the average of the high and low will be a decent measure of the temperature, and if all the records are done in that fashion, that would seem to be a reasonable measure. However, the average of the high and low obviously would not yield the most perfectly accurate result.

For example, one day has a high and low of 50 and 10. The next day, a chinook wind in a mountainous area could occur during the night, taking a temperature of 0 up to 35 or 40, and perhaps a high of 48. It is highly possible and even likely that although the high and low were 48 and 0, if the temperature had been monitored throughout the 24 hour period, the average could very well be higher than the 30 from the previous day. This is but one of countless examples of why the average of a high and low may not yield the most accurate result for average temperature. Obviously, a higher number of readings, such as every hour or even every minute, or even every second if the equipment is capable of doing it, the average would become more and more accurate.

I have not followed the entire argument over this point here, but is it feasible to monitor the temperature throughout a 24 hour period for every station around the globe, in other words do we have the technical capability for doing this in a reliable way, and even if we did, I imagine we would have no similar set of historical records that could be compared to it. I think consistency in measurement is at least as important as the perfection of accuracy that can be attained.

1 Reply

@okie,

So measuring the high/low isn't consistent?

There is no such thing as "perfection" okie. If there is, then why do you continue to present "facts" that aren't perfect. Why on earth would you ever go to a Dr since they are not perfect? Why would you support conservative candidates since they clearly aren't perfect?

1 Reply

@parados,

Did you even read my post? If you had and had any sense, you would not post what you just did.

I said consistency is very important, in regard to the manner of recording temperature, but I was pointing out what should be totally obvious to anyone with even a beginners understanding of math, that being that the more points on a curve that can be obtained instead of merely the high or low points of a curve, the more accurate an average would be for said curve.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Your predilection for insult makes you weaker, not stronger. I wonder if you understand that most here see right through it. A pattern of doing so is the mark of a poor debater, not a strong one.
Does this include you with terms like "spout similar forms of idiocy " ? Of course not ! How dare I ! If you choose to insult first and get the raw end of the attack, it is not your fault ! I know you have trouble with this, but look back through the thread. You were the first to insult but now it is a ...what did you call it ?....the mark of a poor debater...does this this tack of yours make you clever where you are because here you just look like a dickhead.

This is untrue. You are merely attempting to further evade responsibility for posting data to back up your assertions. My first few communications with you in this thread were asking you to post that data, not insulting you.

You continue to dance around the fact that you do not possess the data to back up your argument. I'm afraid to inform you that your argument has failed due to a lack of supporting evidence. There isn't any reason to believe that what you assert is true.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

Except you are missing the forest for the tree you have crashed head on into okie. If one part of the globe sees a large than normal increase in temperature during the day, another part will see a decrease or a less than normal increase.

There is a rather large object in the sky that provides almost all the energy added to the earth's atmosphere. It isn't changing its energy output drastically to cause the changes. What causes the changes you are talking about is the movement of that energy from one part of the globe to another. The laws of physics aren't on your side okie.

The high/low will leave us with an average that may or may not be correct for the day but that doesn't matter if we are figuring trends. We only need to be consistent in how we measure, not in the accuracy of the measurement against some standard that is impossible to achieve.

One need only look at the winter high/low compared to a summer high/low. The difference in high/lows clearly shows a trend that is also clear in any average temperature you want to calculate for the days.

Will there be instances where the high/low could be the same and you could calculate different averages for the days? Yes.
Is the likelihood of those difference going to show a trend that is biased? No, because of the physics of energy and the rather large energy source we have.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados, I am not arguing that we should scrap the use of averaging highs and lows, I am merely pointing out that more accurate averages could be obtained by sampling the entire curve instead of the high and low points. I believe this is obviously true for any curve enumerating the measurements of some phenomena. In fact, I would be willing to say that the entire earth likely does not heat up at the same rate as it cools, so the way in which you are attempting to apply the "laws of physics" is simply not accurate. I doubt seriously that the geometric curve that describes the heating and cooling of the planet each day is not a perfect parabola, nor would it be a triangular looking graph with each side of the triangle adjacent to the high point being equal angles, nor would the high point likely dissect perfectly the amount of time for each day. I hope you can follow that, but you should if you just have a rudimentary understanding of geometry and calculus.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Parados, I am not arguing that we should scrap the use of averaging highs and lows, I am merely pointing out that more accurate averages could be obtained by sampling the entire curve instead of the high and low points. I believe this is obviously true for any curve enumerating the measurements of some phenomena. In fact, I would be willing to say that the entire earth likely does not heat up at the same rate as it cools, so the way in which you are attempting to apply the "laws of physics" is simply not accurate. I doubt seriously that the geometric curve that describes the heating and cooling of the planet each day is not a perfect parabola, nor would it be a triangular looking graph with each side of the triangle adjacent to the high point being equal angles, nor would the high point likely dissect perfectly the amount of time for each day. I hope you can follow that, but you should if you just have a rudimentary understanding of geometry and calculus.

I would guess that averages of several days - and the more the better - do in fact show that data, Okie. And you know enough about math and science (supposedly) to know that a few outlier days due to a 'chinook wind' won't meaningfully change the entire graph either in the long run.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
356
Naturalist Nigel Marven is a trained zoologist and botanist and a UK wildlife documentary maker who spent three months studying and filming polar bears in Canada's arctic in 2007. Marven expressed skepticism about fears that global warming would devastate polar bears. "I think climate change is happening, but as far as the polar bear disappearing is concerned, I have never been more convinced that this is just scaremongering. People are deliberately seeking out skinny bears and filming them to show they are dying out. That's not right," Marven said according to a December 7, 2007 article in the UK Daily Mail. "Of course, in 30 years, if there's no ice over the North Pole, then the bears will be in trouble. But I've seen enough to know that polar bears are not yet on the brink of extinction," Marven added. The article also noted that indigenous residents of the Arctic also reject polar bear fears. "After almost three months of working with those who know the Arctic best - among them Inuit Indians, who are appalled at the way an animal they have lived beside for centuries has become a poster species for ‘misinformed' Greens - Nigel Marven finds himself in broad agreement," the article reported. (LINK) & (LINK)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Parados, I am not arguing that we should scrap the use of averaging highs and lows, I am merely pointing out that more accurate averages could be obtained by sampling the entire curve instead of the high and low points.

I am curious as to how much more accurate it is to sample 10,000,000 data points vs 1,000,000. What do you think the accuracy difference is okie?

1 Reply

@parados,

I don't know, Parados, I am simply pointing out a mathematical principle. I doubt your numbers anyway, because if you take one weather station, it could be more like 24 points or more, with only one reading per hour, versus a mere 2 points. If a reading was taken every hour or more often, and then averaged, it would obviously be more accurate than 2 points, and I suspect it would be in the range of at least a tenth or 2 tenths of a degree, probably more like a few tenths, to a degree or more, but I would need to see some data to really see how the results would look. Actually, with the capability we now have, we should be running a few tests with some stations to see what the differences would be, then go from there in terms of determining future data gathering methods.

Actually, when you look at the panic around the world over a fraction of a degree, the logic of improving the data collection methods makes alot of sense.

This is interesting enough that I might be curious enough to do this manually with my own thermometer setups at my house, for a day or two just to see what the result would be.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I would be willing to say that the entire earth likely does not heat up at the same rate as it cools, so the way in which you are attempting to apply the "laws of physics" is simply not accurate.

Of course the entire earth doesn't heat up the same. I never said it did and physics doesn't require it to all heat up the same.The earth is not a flat plane. That means some areas are directly facing the sun and others are oblique. It doesn't change the fact that the sun is a fairly constant energy source and the totality of the earth receives a fairly constant amount of energy, that varies little with the elliptical orbit and the slight changes in the sun's radiation.

0 Replies

@okie,

How many weather stations are there okie?
Now multiply that by 2 readings per day
Now multiply that by 365 days per year
Now multiply that by 100 years for most of those stations.

The mathematical principle is the statistical accuracy with using MORE data vs the data used. There really isn't any other argument here okie..

So why do you think 180,000,000 data points are more accurate than 18,000,000 when using statistics?

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

This is interesting enough that I might be curious enough to do this manually with my own thermometer setups at my house, for a day or two just to see what the result would be.

I can guarantee you that if you do it more than 20 days you will find that the trend from the high/low will be almost the same (95%) as the trend from readings every hour or even readings every minute.

0 Replies

The primary issue is not how accurate are the measures of the global temperatures over the last 100 years. The primary issue is what caused that temperature rise, whatever amount it rose, and what caused the last decade's temperature leveling off or decreasing, whatever amount it leveled off or decreased.

Human caused variable CO2 emissions? Nature caused variable CO2 emissions? The sun's variable irradiations? Earth's orbit variations? Cosmic rays? ....

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Human caused variable CO2 emissions? Part of the reason

Nature caused variable CO2 emissions? - Only if you want to pretend that humans haven't contributed CO2 above what nature can absorb.

The sun's variable irradiations? - Also part of the current heating but not enough to account for all of it based on known physics.

Earth's orbit variations? - Not shown to exist other than in a desperate attempt to deflect any way deniers can.

Cosmic rays? .... -Proposed, but the science doesn't support it.

1 Reply

@parados,

ican's comments

parados wrote:

Human caused variable CO2 emissions? Part of the reason
Based on known physics, this is not significant enough to account for more than a small percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere. /size]

Nature caused variable CO2 emissions? - Only if you want to pretend that humans haven't contributed CO2 above what nature can absorb.
That's silly! CO2 emissions not caused by humans are known to now and for thousands of years to be far greater than that caused by humans--e.g., volcanoes and earth quakes. They along with the relatively small amount of CO2 caused to be emitted by humans circulates between surface water H2o and CO2 mixtures and atmospheric H2o and CO2 mixtures. As the globe warms more surface water evaporates at a greater rate into the atmosphere. As the globe cools a greater amount of the atmospheric mixture condenses and precipitates into surface water.

The sun's variable irradiations? - Also part of the current heating but not enough to account for all of it based on known physics.
There is a preponderance of evidence to show that the sun's variable irradiance over its 11, 23, and 2300 year irradiance cycles is a principal cause of global temperature cycles.

Earth's orbit variations? - Not shown to exist other than in a desperate attempt to deflect any way deniers can.
That too is silly. The earth's orbit about the sun is elliptical. The result is that the earth's distance from the sun varies enough to cause variation in the amount of irradiance reaching the earth. Furthermore, the earth's rotation is about a wobbling axis which also affects the intensity of the sun's radiation reaching the earth.

Cosmic rays? .... -Proposed, but the science doesn't support it.
I agree that the rate of cosmic rays reaching the earth has not been shown by adequate evidence to vary enough to account in any significant way for variations in the earth's temperature. However, to date science has not shown by adequate evidence that cosmic ray variability has not contributed significantly to variations in the earth's temperatures.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Wow.. You just love to show how ignorant you are ican..

1. Please show how "physics" as you proclaim to know it can only account for a small percentage of CO2. in the atmosphere. Chemistry shows that it is more than a small percentage.

2. If CO2 was condensing from the atmosphere, you and I wouldn't be living on this planet.
3. Yes, over the cycles. There is also a preponderance of evidence to show that the current warming can not be accounted for by irradiance.
4. The earth's orbit is elliptical and cyclical. The distance from the sun in January may differ from the difference in June but the perigee and apogee don't change enough from one trip around the sun to the next to cause what you claim. Secondly, even if the earth wobbles, the disk it presents to the sun doesn't change enough to drastically change the energy that reaches the surface.
5. So, we can assume then that your stupidity is driving the increase in temperature since science doesn't have any evidence showing that your stupidity isn't causing warming?

2 Replies

@parados,

My guess is that it may not be worth sampling the temperature curve more than we do now, but obviously more data points provide a more accurate average, that was the debate here I thought. And if one station is off by maybe a half degree, how can multiplying that by all the stations cure the inaccuracy.

My conclusion is that this is an interesting issue, I would like to know what the potential error might be, it arouses a curiosity about it. It is also possible tha the error might commonly be in one direction, either warmer or cooler, Parados, so your idea that multiplying one weather station's 2 data points by all of the weather stations would improve the accuracy, I am not so sure about that.

2 Replies

@parados,

Parados, your corruptions of what I actually posted are amusing. Keep up the comedy.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know