Remember me
▼ Content

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth



Page 2 of 4<1234>
21-06-2020 05:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
tgoebbles wrote:[couldn't respond to my lengthy post] I can't make you debate.

Well you did it. You tipped your king again while claiming that I am somehow EVADING you (of all people).

I can't make you debate ... and I can't make you discuss ... and I can't make you be honest, that's for sure.

tgoebbles wrote: The equilibrium temp of Earth is calculated at [fabrication deleted] if you accept the estimate for the emissivity of Earth. But we've been over all of that before.

There is no such thing as any "estimate" that isn't a pure fabrication.

Why should any rational adult believe your WACKY religion? Would that be for the same reason that "black people" can't be racist?

tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:What specific occurrence are you now denying occurred?
The ground level of Earth having a mean of [deleted fabrication with of course no margin of error]

Why should any rational adult believe that you are omniscient?

tgoebbles wrote: This is simply dead wrong. A margin of error is determined by the data.

You omitted the word "target" ... and I presume the omission was intentional.

IBDaMann wrote: Yes, everyone declares his/her own target, determined by some original requirement for doing the measuring in the first place.


Of course the actual margin of error is verified after the data is collected ... and the data is collected according to a collection plan, which is devised to meet the target margin of error.

Now tell me ... what about this are you denying? Otherwise ... you are WRONG!

tgoebbles wrote: You have ducked my questions:

You are a liar. You are the one ducking and avoiding and EVADING my questions. You do that whenever you feel your WACKY religious dogma being threatened.

tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: earth's temperature at the very large margin of error to which humanity is limited....the margin of error supported by the data...
And what is that? What is "large"? More than 1, 10, 100, is it more than 1000 degrees?

I'm ignoring your unclear questions. If you are going to food-processor what I wrote so that I don't understand the context of your questions then I'm not going to be able to respond.

Write out your questions in complete sentences. I do it for you; I expect you to extend the same courtesy to me. I don't care that you chop up my quote for space ... but you have to be mindful of what you are cutting out because I'm not going to know what you're thinking, like in this case.

tgoebbles wrote: We both know that you haven't bothered to do any work on this yet you assert your "answer", which is based on your gut feeling, is right.

We both know that you don't know what work I have done on this. We also both know that you are feeling your dogma being severely threatened by my offer to walk you through the math ... which is why you know I've gone through it ... and why you will do everything humanly possible to get out going through the math and being faced with the incontrovertible truth that nobody can know the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy ... and that you aren't actually omniscient.

tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Raw data is all that matters...I am quite capable of performing my own analysis
Great then how about you share some of each?

That's exactly what you and I are going to do. You are going to select an application that requires a value for the earth's temperature and then we'll get started.

tgoebbles wrote: The upper limit of the Sun's energy for a planet is not the temp on the surface of the sun it is the radiance at that distance. But you know that.

The hottest temperature of the sun absolutely is the upper limit for any temperature on earth. But you knew that.

Let's do the math. Let's face the music.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-06-2020 11:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
IBdaMann[claims tmiddles] couldn't respond to my lengthy post... and I can't make you discuss ...
Oh what did I miss in your lengthy post?

This?
IBdaMann wrote:Don't think I'm not noticing you doubling down on stupid
This?
IBdaMann wrote:Have you learned "standard deviation" yet?
How about this?
IBdaMann wrote:You WANT math errors? ... or do you just want more people who are crappy at math?
Was I supposed to respond to those?

You waste so much time and space with insults and BS that IF you actually have a question I don't see one there.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The equilibrium temp of Earth...
There is no such thing as any "estimate"
Let me guess: It's not possible to have a margin of error on the emissivity of a planet? You either know with infinite precision or you don't know at all? But this is a rerun we've gone over all of this before. Venus Plantary Equilibrium Temp Prove my point with full emissivity:
tmiddles wrote:
T = (temperature of the sun)*1.0(full emissivity)^1/4 * [(radius of sun)/2*distance from the sun]^1/2

Or 5770K*1.0*[(7*10^5)/[2*(1.08*10^8)]]^0.5

5770*(7/2160)^0.5=328K

IBdaMann wrote:You omitted the word "target" ...
No you and ITN did in asserting that is is the RESULT of being "declared". ITN very clearly stated that a Margin Of Error is "declared" and you said he was correct. I said it was calculated from the data and guess what?:
Into The Night wrote:The margin of error is a result of the declared variance, not the data.
So is ITN wrong or what?
"Margin of Error" is a well defined term. Anyone can google it right now and see that I'm right. Your attempts to redefine it are just silly.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You have ducked my questions:
You are a liar....I'm ignoring your unclear questions.
I"m tempted to ask the difference between ducking and ignoring but nah, skip it.

It's this simple: NASA and others have claimed fractional margins of error on their measurement of Earths ground level temp. You have said repeatedly on this board: 1998 thread:
IBdaMann wrote:
For any given volume, we cannot be accurate without multiple measurements. To get the margin of error for the earth to within +/-20degC you would need many hundreds of millions of calibrated, synchronized and evenly spaced thermometers...
26 SEP 2015IBdaMann wrote:
climate scientist wrote:Determining whether the planet has warmed, is still warming, and will warm in the future is a very complicated task.

No, it's simply not possible. We don't have the hundreds of millions of evenly-spaced, synchronized thermometers at various altitudes that will allow an average measurement to be computed within any usable margin of error
So the question is where is your work on this? How did you come up with "hundred of millions" needed as opposed to some other number. You said it, so explain yourself. Margin of error is calculated. Where is your calculation most of all on the current measurements being "useless"?

IBdaMann wrote:You are going to select an application...
No thanks. I'd be interested to see some of your work though.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 21-06-2020 11:41
22-06-2020 17:49
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1217)
@ipiddlemyself

TARGET margin of error ≠ ACTUAL margin of error.

Dumbass.
22-06-2020 18:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
tgoebbles wrote:You waste so much time and space with insults and BS that IF you actually have a question I don't see one there.

The mockery is all that remains when you EVADE all discussion.

tgoebbles wrote:"Margin of Error" is a well defined term.

"Margin of Error" is a poorly understood term ... by you.

tgoebbles wrote:It's this simple: NASA and others have claimed fractional margins of error on their measurement of Earths ground level temp.

It's this simple: NASA and others never publish their raw data, ergo all of their claims are dismissed.

tgoebbles wrote: You have said repeatedly on this board:

Exactly ... and you insist that I am WRONG! because it blows a gaping hole in your fragile religious beliefs. So I offer to walk you through the math, but you arch your back and hiss, looking to run away from the reality you FEAR.

tgoebbles wrote: How did you come up with "hundred of millions" needed as opposed to some other number.

... and you double down on your insistence ... with absolutely no intention of engaging this topic because it blows a gaping hole in your fragile religious beliefs.

Watch: Pick an application that requires a temperature for the earth to some accuracy.

[this is where you flee in utter panick]

Hey, you are the one that is asking. Stop running away and get your question answered.

tgoebbles wrote: You said it, so explain yourself. Margin of error is calculated.

Yep. Let's get started. I'll walk you through it. You have to start with an accuracy requirement so pick an application that requires a temperature of the earth to some accuracy.


tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You are going to select an application...
No thanks. I'd be interested to see some of your work though.

You have to pick one so I can walk you through it so I can answer your question.

Forget about the hole you're going to blow in your faith for just a moment and let's walk through it.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-06-2020 21:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...29...17...21d...10g...15a...15b...20g...20o...25g...20q1...20q2...25f...10g...4a...4b...10g...21d...10g...4f...29...29...29...6...


No argument presented. Lies. RQAA. Denial of mathematics. Denial of science. Spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
23-06-2020 10:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
gfm7175 wrote:
TARGET margin of error ≠ ACTUAL margin of error.
There is a point to that. A printed accuracy can be exceeded by the device so posted as a reliable minimum. Similar to many product claims where you can get sued later if you it falls short.

Do you agree that a measurement is ACTUALLY uncertain in how close it is to the true value of what is being measured? That how close can be described by a probability?

IBdaMann wrote:NASA and others never publish their raw data, ergo all of their claims are dismissed.
Debunked in my sig.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You have said ...To get within +/-20degC you would need many hundreds of millions of ...thermometers
Exactly ... and you insist that I am WRONG!...Stop running away
If you want to claim I said something quote me. What I said was first that I cannot myself do the calculation and second that I'd like you to share your solution. You have made a specific claim above let's see the math.

IBdaMann wrote:Let's get started. ...You have to ...pick an application
See above. I'm asking about YOUR claims. You know why you made them. Proceed with explaining what you've already posted here repeatedly.

You did not respond to this:
IBdaMann wrote:You omitted the word "target" ...
No you and ITN did in asserting that is is the RESULT of being "declared". ITN very clearly stated that a Margin Of Error is "declared" and you said he was correct. I said it was calculated from the data and guess what?:
Into The Night wrote:The margin of error is a result of the declared variance, not the data.
So is ITN wrong or what?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
23-06-2020 17:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
tmiddles wrote:Do you agree that a measurement is ACTUALLY uncertain in how close it is to the true value of what is being measured?

Nobody is disputing inherent uncertainty in the universe. You are infusing the issue in order to change the topic away from you being WRONG!

The issue is you gibbering nonsense and claiming that those who are trying to help you are WRONG! because you fear for your WACKY religious faith. Can we PLEASE stay focused on that for long enough to close that out?

Do you agree that you are an ignorant dumbass who runs away from anything that would force you face the fact that your WACKY Global Warming is a boolsch't religious cult based on HATRED and intolerance that only a gullible, scientifically illiterate moron would fall for, and be forced to defend lest he accept extreme public humiliation for having fallen for such a rookie league scam?

Yes, Heisenberg already established uncertainty in all measures. Goedell established the incompleteness of any set of knowledge. Turing established the procedural "halting problem." You can always just site their work on those topics.

Let's get back to how you are WRONG! It's much more fun, don't you agree?

tmiddles wrote: That how close can be described by a probability?

Nope. Since the measures that meet this criteria are inherently uncertain, you would thus have uncertainty of your probability, which you would try to express as a probability, which would itself be uncertain and require a "probability" ... which would be uncertain and require a probability ... etc.. ad infinitum.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:NASA and others never publish their raw data, ergo all of their claims are dismissed.
Debunked in my sig.

Debunked in your mind only, as you flee in terror. Your religion is dead.

tmiddles wrote: What I said was first that I cannot myself do the calculation ... [lame excuses deleted]

... and you are going to allow me to explain it to you without running away in fear just because you realize that your religion is about to experience a major implosion. You are going to STFU and pick an application of your choice that requires the earth's temperature to some accuracy ... and I'm going to walk you through the math, which is rather easy, as to how you can devise a data collection plan that meets the target you set to meet the requirements.

If you're not going to do that then you can always just tip your king and admit that you are WRONG! again and we can close this out.

tmiddles wrote:See above. I'm asking about YOUR claims. You know why you made them. Proceed with explaining what you've already posted here repeatedly.

See above. I'm trying to directly answer your question by walking you through the math ... that is the ONLY way to answer your question ... but you are balking because of the threat level you perceive to your WACKY faith (which you should be ditching in the first place).
Proceed with picking an application that requires the earth's temperature to some accuracy, any one you want, so I can proceed with explaining what you want to know.

Please get to it.

tmiddles wrote: You did not respond to this:
IBdaMann wrote:You omitted the word "target" ...
No you and ITN did in asserting that is is the RESULT of being "declared". ITN very clearly stated that a Margin Of Error is "declared" and you said he was correct. I said it was calculated from the data and guess what?:

This will be made crystal clear when we walk through our example. In fact I somewhat answered your question above but let's get going with our walk-through so everything will be amazingly clear.

Pick an application.



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-06-2020 18:14
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1217)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
TARGET margin of error ≠ ACTUAL margin of error.
There is a point to that. A printed accuracy can be exceeded by the device so posted as a reliable minimum. Similar to many product claims where you can get sued later if you it falls short.

Do you agree that a measurement is ACTUALLY uncertain in how close it is to the true value of what is being measured? That how close can be described by a probability?

No. RQAA.
24-06-2020 10:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Do you agree that a measurement is ACTUALLY uncertain in how close it is to the true value of what is being measured?
...gibbering...Heisenberg...Goedell ...agree?
How about fundamental statistics and measurement error?:
"Observational error (or measurement error) is the difference between a measured value of a quantity and its true value....The higher the precision of a measurement instrument, the smaller the variability (standard deviation) of the fluctuations in its readings." (wiki)

IBdaMann wrote:...you would thus have uncertainty of your probability
So what is your approach to measurement error?

IBdaMann wrote:... pick an application of your choice...
The application is already on the table. The measurement of the temperature of Earth at ground level and your previous answer is already on the table, hundreds of millions of thermometers to get to within +/- 20 degrees. What are you waiting for? You already figured it out to your own satisfaction so share with the rest of us how you did it.

The +/- 20 degrees does actually provide useful proof (IF it can be measured) that the ground level of Earth exceeds the equilibrium temp of the planet (-18C).

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Do you agree that a measurement is ACTUALLY uncertain...

No....
So you consider measurements to be certain as in perfect? all of them?

You know GFM you could just say you don't want to debate me and save us both time.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 24-06-2020 10:39
24-06-2020 17:54
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1217)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Do you agree that a measurement is ACTUALLY uncertain...

No....

And once again you play your editing games...

tmiddles wrote:
So you consider measurements to be certain as in perfect? all of them?

No.

I accept Heisenberg, but you seem to be trying to use him to claim that one cannot measure a wall and be 100% confident that the wall is [measured length] +- [instrument tolerance]. That I do not accept.

tmiddles wrote:
You know GFM you could just say you don't want to debate me and save us both time.

YOU are the one who doesn't wish to debate.
Edited on 24-06-2020 17:55
24-06-2020 19:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 10g...7...10g...29...29...10g...29...


No argument presented. Semantics fallacies. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-06-2020 19:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 10g...29...10g...25g...29...25c...25g...29...29...17...10h...


No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of mathematics. Semantics fallacies. Buzzword fallacies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 24-06-2020 19:07
24-06-2020 20:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
tgoebbles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:... pick an application of your choice...
The application is already on the table. The measurement of the temperature of Earth at ground level

Nope. That could be what is being measured but we need an application that specifically calls for that measurement to a certain accuracy.

That application's accuracy requirement will determine our target margin of error.

Nothing could be simpler. Pick one.

[quote]tgoebbles wrote: The +/- 20 degrees does actually provide useful proof (IF it can be measured) that the ground level of Earth exceeds the equilibrium temp of the planet (-18C).

The "Mean Value Theorem" does that. When it comes to values, this theorem is mean. Your assertion that the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere is higher than the planet's average temperature ... is something that any mathematician will tell you is intuitive and will point to the mean value theorem as being what says that.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-06-2020 04:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
gfm7175 wrote:[You Can] measure a wall and be 100% confident that the wall is [measured length] +- [instrument tolerance].

Well it's never 100%. Generally it's 95% or sometimes 99% but never 100.

However I would agree that you can measure a length and be confident (95%) that the measurement error between what your measurement showed and the true value is within a margin.

Incidentally this is super basic statistics. Karl Pearson gave us the standard deviation in 1893 but it was being used long before that under other names. It's got nothing to do with Heisenberg (his uncertainty principle was in 1927 and deals with position and velocity of subatomic particles).

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The +/- 20 degrees does actually provide useful proof (IF it can be measured) that the ground level of Earth exceeds the equilibrium temp of the planet (-18C).

The "Mean Value Theorem" does that.
Great please share how you used it to arrive at your solution. (+/- 20 degrees with hundred of millions of thermometers).

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
25-06-2020 05:43
James___
★★★★★
(3185)
IBdaMann wrote:
tgoebbles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:... pick an application of your choice...
The application is already on the table. The measurement of the temperature of Earth at ground level

Nope. That could be what is being measured but we need an application that specifically calls for that measurement to a certain accuracy.

That application's accuracy requirement will determine our target margin of error.

Nothing could be simpler. Pick one.

tgoebbles wrote: The +/- 20 degrees does actually provide useful proof (IF it can be measured) that the ground level of Earth exceeds the equilibrium temp of the planet (-18C).

The "Mean Value Theorem" does that. When it comes to values, this theorem is mean. Your assertion that the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere is higher than the planet's average temperature ... is something that any mathematician will tell you is intuitive and will point to the mean value theorem as being what says that.


.



This debate is sad. To be a nitpicky @sshole, a +/- 20 degrees, is that Celsius or Fahrenheit? If it's Fahrenheit then it's about 11 degrees Celsius or kelvin. And that's about +/- 4%. That is closer than the 5% deviation allowed by statistics.
When 95% certainty is stated, they imply +/- 5%. 5% is the margin of error, it allows for both +/-. After all, are they 100% certain about how uncertain they are? If not, then the value is an average of what the margin of error allows for and they do allow for that, right?
So please excuse me for being confused but how can we be certain how uncertain we are when we're not certain? I think George Carlin would've loved this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyBH5oNQOS0
Edited on 25-06-2020 05:55
25-06-2020 07:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:[You Can] measure a wall and be 100% confident that the wall is [measured length] +- [instrument tolerance].

Well it's never 100%. Generally it's 95% or sometimes 99% but never 100.

However I would agree that you can measure a length and be confident (95%) that the measurement error between what your measurement showed and the true value is within a margin.

Mantra 10g.
tmiddles wrote:
Incidentally this is super basic statistics.

Not statistics at all. It's just word salad.
tmiddles wrote:
Karl Pearson gave us the standard deviation in 1893 but it was being used long before that under other names. It's got nothing to do with Heisenberg (his uncertainty principle was in 1927 and deals with position and velocity of subatomic particles).

Irrelevant. Mantra 10g.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The +/- 20 degrees does actually provide useful proof (IF it can be measured) that the ground level of Earth exceeds the equilibrium temp of the planet (-18C).

The "Mean Value Theorem" does that.
Great please share how you used it to arrive at your solution. (+/- 20 degrees with hundred of millions of thermometers).

What hundreds of millions thermometers? RQAA. Mantra 25g.


No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of mathematics. Denial of science. Word salad. Semantics fallacies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-06-2020 11:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
Into the Night wrote:
What hundreds of millions thermometers?
That's what I'm asking IBD. He has said repeatedly on the board over the years:
1998 thread:
IBdaMann wrote:
For any given volume, we cannot be accurate without multiple measurements. To get the margin of error for the earth to within +/-20degC you would need many hundreds of millions of calibrated, synchronized and evenly spaced thermometers...
25-06-2020 20:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What hundreds of millions thermometers?
That's what I'm asking IBD. He has said repeatedly on the board over the years:
1998 thread:
IBdaMann wrote:
For any given volume, we cannot be accurate without multiple measurements. To get the margin of error for the earth to within +/-20degC you would need many hundreds of millions of calibrated, synchronized and evenly spaced thermometers...


Oh. So you're putting words in his mouth again. Okay. Mantras 30...16c...


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-06-2020 21:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
Into the Night wrote:...putting words in his mouth again.
What? I quoted IBD.
25-06-2020 21:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...putting words in his mouth again.
What? I quoted IBD.


Mantras 30...16c...RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 25-06-2020 21:45
28-06-2020 06:41
GreenEggsNham
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
I was following this thread with interest but it seems to have wandered into something else.

I am sticking to the thread title....how do you measure the temperature of earth

The idea of an average global temperature concerns me, as a chemical engineer because...[numbered point 1, there are several, this is the start]
1. Earth is a large, randomly mixed, variable surface, non uniform planet with an irregular wobbling orbit around a sun with varying energy output with a range of temperatures recorded from -90C to +54C (NOTE - this is only what hmans have recorded in say 100 years max, our observation not necessarily the actual range). Where do you measure temperatures - sea level? Top of hills? In sheltered valleys? In or away from prevailing cool sea winds? In Antarctica? At the equator? where??? Each of these places is valid for that place alone but when this data is combined there is a problem - an average is for the comparison of similar data - the only thing this data has in common is that its a temperature on the planet. You simply cannot average these temperatures together. There is not uniform distribution of samples, there is no weighting - there is a long list of issues. If you take daily temperature at the equator (on land) and the same time each day in Antarctica - can you realistically average these numbers? 30C at the equator, -30C at Antarctica average = 0C - No. What temperature are you measuring - Max, Min? Are these temperatures weighted to reflect the trend over a day? No. If you took measurements in the same place, even then you have to consider what you are measuring - unless the temperature is sampled every minute for 24hrs you will get a vastly different impression from daily max/min data. This is a problem.

I could pick local places I know would give a higher or lower temperature year round just in my local area - so where do you sample and how do you ensure reliable data?

Temperature data is being homogenised in a way that makes it irrelevant.

Not interested in a microscopic detail critique of my post, you know what I am talking about. Lets just stick to the how question
28-06-2020 06:58
GreenEggsNham
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
And, just to add, we are talking about global temperatures being quoted down to 0.01C - that would mean an error of 0.0005C for 95% confidence. Anything less fails the significance test. I am not sure how you could calibrate to and maintain this level of accuracy but your entire setup would need to be at constant temperature and pressure. Just because a machine gives a number does not mean its reliable in any way
28-06-2020 14:39
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
GreenEggsNham wrote:
And, just to add, we are talking about global temperatures being quoted down to 0.01C - that would mean an error of 0.0005C for 95% confidence. Anything less fails the significance test. I am not sure how you could calibrate to and maintain this level of accuracy but your entire setup would need to be at constant temperature and pressure. Just because a machine gives a number does not mean its reliable in any way


This is how statistics work.

You have a measurement of (say) 100 but with a random uncertainty of +/-1 then your result is 100 +/-1. Yes?

Now you take 100 different independent readings of that same quantity each with that same random uncertainty. If the average result is still 100, what do you think the uncertainty is on that average is? Still +/- 1? It is not.

The uncertainty is reduced by the square root of the number of samples. So the result would be 100 +/- 0.1.

10,000 samples 0.01 and so on.

There are literally millions of measurements that go into the calculation that is why the results are so consistent. It is a bit more sophisticated than that because they divide the data into cells so not to bias the result to areas with large numbers of sites (e.g., cities) compared to others with few (oceans).

There is a second independent way to check the result without even knowing the uncertainty on an individual measurement - monte carlo. This applied to gridded data like the climate data is. Here you divide the data up into cells containing the average temperature data from many different sites (where you have them). You then combine the result from all the different cells to get the average. The uncertainty is then the standard deviation of the average divided by the square root of the number of cells (minus 1).

You then randomly reassign the grid, changing the size and location of the cells and do it again. You do this thousands of times and look at the distribution of the results (usually a bell curve). The peak of the distribution is the overall average and the half width at half maximum is the uncertainty. This technique also allows you to fill in missing or unreliable data and test how that assumption affects your result (increasing the uncertainty). You can also identify results ahat are from bad readings or errors.

You can compare the results of the two methods and you get basically the same result.
28-06-2020 17:55
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2430)
Isn't mathemagic wonder stuff... Unfortunately, 80% of the planet surface is water, with very few temperature readings. This is a vast 'unknown, in the statistical analysis. Basically, you are taking a very small sample (less than 20% of the surface), and preforming mathemagic, to 'create' 80% of the data, used to calculate global temperature. Your method was intended to fill in small gaps in data, with a reasonable estimated value. 80% of the planet surface is a huge gap to fill.

You'll also find similar misuse of math, research papers, and data, throughout 'climate science'. Proxies and analogs aren't data, have no accuracy, how relevant, is speculation. When you rely entirely on speculation, and 'creationism' for data used, it becomes faith-based. Nothing more than a belief-system, a cult.

Historically, we started recording temperature data for other reasons, mainly local weather. Monitoring stations were generally placed where people lived, and were interested in the temperature. Each year, more monitoring stations are added. And most of those are in warmer climates. Climate Change, is really just a computer simulation, a video game, where people make presumptions on what is relevant, or not, and run any data they find, that could work, through a model. The data, is mostly computer generated. What's relevant to the cause, is programmed into the model, the results, is pretty well biased to produce the expected results. They could do the same, to show global cooling, just as effectively. But what fun would there be in that? We want to destroy the energy markets, not boost sales of fuels people would need to stay warm. Humans weren't born with thick fur, to handle cold climates. We like it in the warmer climate, which is why global warming never got the attention desired. It's fairly certain, another glacial event is going to happen in the next couple thousand years. Can't imagine attempts to speed that up at all. Cold weather is much more dangerous and deadly, to all life. Plants don't grow well in cold climates, and short seasons. Makes for a lot of starving animals, and competition for what little food is available.

The planet is doing just fine, as it has for millions, and millions of years. Humans, are just a brief spot in it's history. We are just along for the ride, and have pretty much no effect on this huge hunk of rock. We can make a mess of our living space, kill ourselves off, but it's not going to matter to the planet at all. Whole lot of other species have gone extinct in the past, and the world just kept turning.
28-06-2020 18:49
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1812)
DRKTS wrote:
GreenEggsNham wrote:
And, just to add, we are talking about global temperatures being quoted down to 0.01C - that would mean an error of 0.0005C for 95% confidence. Anything less fails the significance test. I am not sure how you could calibrate to and maintain this level of accuracy but your entire setup would need to be at constant temperature and pressure. Just because a machine gives a number does not mean its reliable in any way


There are literally millions of measurements that go into the calculation that is why the results are so consistent. It is a bit more sophisticated than that.....

Smartest man in the room, eh?

You describe measuring a fixed target. Earth surface temp is constantly changing, everywhere. It's a moving target.

You are comparing apples and oranges and it's really no more sophisticated than that.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Edited on 28-06-2020 18:52
29-06-2020 00:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
DRKTS wrote:This is how statistics work.

This promises to be good. Please get it right.

DRKTS wrote:You have a measurement of (say) 100 but with a random uncertainty of +/-1 then your result is 100 +/-1. Yes?

Not quite. That "uncertainty" is the tolerance of the measuring device.

DRKTS wrote: Now you take 100 different independent readings of that same quantity each with that same random uncertainty.

... then you must be taking the measurements of the same quantity with the same measuring device. You should expect the exact same reading every time, no?

This leads to ...

DRKTS wrote: If the average result is still 100, what do you think the uncertainty is on that average is? Still +/- 1? It is not.

Yes, it most certainly is.

DRKTS wrote:The uncertainty is reduced by the square root of the number of samples. So the result would be 100 +/- 0.1.

Not if you use the same measuring device. It remains exactly the same.

DRKTS wrote: There are literally millions of measurements that go into the calculation that is why the results are so consistent.

The numbers you cite are purely fabricated, that's why they are so remarkably consistent.

DRKTS wrote: It is a bit more sophisticated than that because they divide the data into cells so not to bias the result to areas with large numbers of sites (e.g., cities) compared to others with few (oceans).

None of that happens when it comes to Global Warming. There is no "The Data" and hence there are no researchers in lab coats out meticulously measuring the global warming.[/quote]

DRKTS wrote: There is a second independent way to check the result without even knowing the uncertainty on an individual measurement - monte carlo.

Into the Night has explained this requirement of valid data many times. It's too bad that this isn't done with respect to Global Warming.

DRKTS wrote:This applied to gridded data like the climate data is.

There is no Climate "The Data."

Wait, you could prove me wrong and just post it here in this thread. I'll drop it into a spreadsheet and do the analysis. We'll have a ball.

So, assuming that you have actually seen Climate data being collected, what is the target margin of error for measuring the Climate? How was the data collection plan formulated?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-06-2020 04:01
GreenEggsNham
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
DRKTS wrote:
GreenEggsNham wrote:
And, just to add, we are talking about global temperatures being quoted down to 0.01C - that would mean an error of 0.0005C for 95% confidence. Anything less fails the significance test. I am not sure how you could calibrate to and maintain this level of accuracy but your entire setup would need to be at constant temperature and pressure. Just because a machine gives a number does not mean its reliable in any way


This is how statistics work.

You have a measurement of (say) 100 but with a random uncertainty of +/-1 then your result is 100 +/-1. Yes?

Now you take 100 different independent readings of that same quantity each with that same random uncertainty. If the average result is still 100, what do you think the uncertainty is on that average is? Still +/- 1? It is not.

The uncertainty is reduced by the square root of the number of samples. So the result would be 100 +/- 0.1.

10,000 samples 0.01 and so on.

There are literally millions of measurements that go into the calculation that is why the results are so consistent. It is a bit more sophisticated than that because they divide the data into cells so not to bias the result to areas with large numbers of sites (e.g., cities) compared to others with few (oceans).

There is a second independent way to check the result without even knowing the uncertainty on an individual measurement - monte carlo. This applied to gridded data like the climate data is. Here you divide the data up into cells containing the average temperature data from many different sites (where you have them). You then combine the result from all the different cells to get the average. The uncertainty is then the standard deviation of the average divided by the square root of the number of cells (minus 1).

You then randomly reassign the grid, changing the size and location of the cells and do it again. You do this thousands of times and look at the distribution of the results (usually a bell curve). The peak of the distribution is the overall average and the half width at half maximum is the uncertainty. This technique also allows you to fill in missing or unreliable data and test how that assumption affects your result (increasing the uncertainty). You can also identify results ahat are from bad readings or errors.

You can compare the results of the two methods and you get basically the same result.


maybe you should reread my post. I hold a degree in Chemistry and another in Chemical & Process Engineering - as such I am fully aware of the statistics approach.

You are talking about statistical sampling and some kind of normal distribution.

What is the distribution of temperature? Not normal. Its random if sampled once a day, to an extent. But is dependent on what happened earlier when you look at a temperature trace.

This is fine for some things like the size of ball bearings on a production line but not temperatures taken using different equipment and in different places at different time etc. Even for ball bearings you have to determine the type of distribution and then apply the correct statistical formula and hope the distribution does not change.

Statistical error is not the same as measurement error. Statistical error is for the fact that a sample is representing a larger population and the accuracy of your "sample". Whereas I was talking about the experimental error associated with taking a measurement

I fall back to my days in a laboratory studying chemistry. When you take an experimental measurement there is a measurement error, usually +/- half of the graduated scale. So i burette marked at 0.1ml scale has an error of +/- 0.05ml. A pipette has a much lower error, I cannot recall but it depends on the volume.

So when you add experimental data (to get an average) you also have to add the error for each measurement. This is quite logical, ie you collect 10ml from your burette 10 times each 10ml is +/- 0.05ml so you now have 100ml +/-0.5ml
https://thefactfactor.com/facts/pure_science/physics/propagation-of-errors/9502/

Now the concept of average. Again this is fine for measurements of the same thing i.e. temperature in chicago at 3pm every day. But it is not valid to average temperatures in different places. As per my example that average temperature between the equator (at 30C) and Antarctica (at-30C) is meaningless, the average is zero.

You cannot, and I repeat, cannot increase the accuracy of experimental data to below that of the reading error. AND, if you average (the same place, same time etc) the error on your average must not be less than the largest error on your recorded data. Even then a hot or cold change 10 minutes before your recording makes a joke of your data.

Applying statistical analysis to temperature data is meaningless
RE: so is this data fraud?29-06-2020 04:55
GreenEggsNham
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
This is slightly off topic but still relevant in terms of the way statistics are used.

Maybe our statistical expert DKTRS can explain what is going on here.

It highlights the disconnect between peoples understanding of science (measurements) and statistics (samples) and shows that the famous quote is still valid today.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

NSIDC report sea ice extent for the poles. In both regions they ignore one of the fundamental principles of science - present all of the data. If there are errors, talk about them and explain.

So they have averages for various time periods. 1979-2009, 1981-2010, 1991-2000, 2001-2010, 2011-2019.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

So why dont the present one average for all of the data 1979-2019? They appear to believe that by showing recent data in 10 year groups they can highlight warming. While ignoring that selectively averaging data to suit you agenda is data fraud.

They supply a 2 standard deviations option but this is based only on the 1979-2009 data and so does not represent the data in full. As such this band does not represent that actual variance of the collected data.

Why? [ok, I didnt need to ask that]

Because when you examine all of the data is is 100% clear that despite claims of massive ice lost from the Arctic, the data does not support this claim. Sure there is the occasional year when the summer minimum and winter maximum dip outside the 2 standard deviation zone, but there are also years when the minimum and maximum are high but we never hear this. If the standard deviations included ALL DATA, as it should do, this would not be the case.

They are denying statistics in the belief that a ten year sample can be taken as proof of a warming claim by ignoring that without incorporating all data they are cutting off the natural variability that the data reflects. This is the thing, statistical analysis allows for variance and that is why changes in data need to reach a certain level before they become significant - apparently not when it comes to proving warming, it is always significant even when its not.

If you select "show all years" and overlay the 2 SD band the data during the summer dip is nowhere near the upper limit - this is impossible, unless the 2 SD band has been fudged. And when you look at the bottom of the band it becomes obvious the band has been shifted upwards or is only valid for 1979-2009.

When you have 40 years of data, to present it in 10 year chunks is nothing more than deception if you dont also present the all data average and corresponding standard deviation band for this data.

And then there is the assumption that sea ice at the poles follows a normal distribution....mmm
And that 40 years of data is definitive of changes....
And that satellite data started in 1973 but they dont want to disclose that data....
29-06-2020 04:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
GreenEggsNham wrote: Statistical error is not the same as measurement error.

Thank you. tmiddles insists that they are both the same and that I am making chit up when I tell him that the tolerance of a measuring device is not the same as the margin of error for a given dataset.

Your post is very good. I quibble with only one thing:

GreenEggsNham wrote: Applying statistical analysis to temperature data is meaningless

Statistical mathematics can certainly be applied to temperature data. It can be applied to any data whatsoever.

The problem with all Global Warming or Climate Change statistical analyses is that they never have a valid dataset upon which to render any valid analytics. Crap in = crap out. Fabricated/Made-up numbers in = Fabricated/Made-up conclusions out.

Good post.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-06-2020 06:36
GreenEggsNham
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
DRTKS - "You then randomly reassign the grid, changing the size and location of the cells and do it again. You do this thousands of times and look at the distribution of the results (usually a bell curve). The peak of the distribution is the overall average and the half width at half maximum is the uncertainty. This technique also allows you to fill in missing or unreliable data and test how that assumption affects your result (increasing the uncertainty). You can also identify results ahat are from bad readings or errors. "

oh dear oh dear. I had to pull this section out as it deserves special attention. Statistics are not science and should not ever dictate to science, they are for sampling of predictable populations - climate is not in this category.

Have you ever completed an experiment in a lab where you had to collect data, actual data, not data that was "made up" because you didnt record that bit? This is laughable, really.

So by running a fudge factor over and over again you can smooth out the data so it no longer represents what was collected. This is only done because it is nonsensical to average temperatures from different places. Data is data, why would you want to smooth it off because it doesnt look how you want it to look? Very few things in nature follow straight lines and comply with mankind's naive expectation of orderly and predictable patterns.

In science when you take a measurement, say 25C, then later find that the reading is likely an error and it should have been 20C. You can justify adjusting that reading BUT the new reading is 20C +/- 5C [25% error] ie the adjustment creates an error that cannot be ignored so your entire dataset is now +/- 5C. You can never go back into the past and confirm if it was an error or if that was actually the reading, hence the error.
The idea that some temperatures are deemed to be errors and are adjusted is absolutely insane.

Are you able to provide the proof or any evidence that temperatures follow a bell curve? This would be a major scientific breakthrough, possibly a Nobel price. Have a look at a temperature trace for a day and ask if it follows a normal distribution?

I am annoyed because of my timezone (New Zealand) I will have to wait till tomorrow morning for a reply but I do look forward to your explanation.
29-06-2020 22:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
DRKTS wrote:
GreenEggsNham wrote:
And, just to add, we are talking about global temperatures being quoted down to 0.01C - that would mean an error of 0.0005C for 95% confidence. Anything less fails the significance test. I am not sure how you could calibrate to and maintain this level of accuracy but your entire setup would need to be at constant temperature and pressure. Just because a machine gives a number does not mean its reliable in any way


This is how statistics work.

You have a measurement of (say) 100 but with a random uncertainty of +/-1 then your result is 100 +/-1. Yes?

Now you take 100 different independent readings of that same quantity each with that same random uncertainty. If the average result is still 100, what do you think the uncertainty is on that average is? Still +/- 1? It is not.

The uncertainty is reduced by the square root of the number of samples. So the result would be 100 +/- 0.1.

10,000 samples 0.01 and so on.

There are literally millions of measurements that go into the calculation that is why the results are so consistent. It is a bit more sophisticated than that because they divide the data into cells so not to bias the result to areas with large numbers of sites (e.g., cities) compared to others with few (oceans).

There is a second independent way to check the result without even knowing the uncertainty on an individual measurement - monte carlo. This applied to gridded data like the climate data is. Here you divide the data up into cells containing the average temperature data from many different sites (where you have them). You then combine the result from all the different cells to get the average. The uncertainty is then the standard deviation of the average divided by the square root of the number of cells (minus 1).

You then randomly reassign the grid, changing the size and location of the cells and do it again. You do this thousands of times and look at the distribution of the results (usually a bell curve). The peak of the distribution is the overall average and the half width at half maximum is the uncertainty. This technique also allows you to fill in missing or unreliable data and test how that assumption affects your result (increasing the uncertainty). You can also identify results ahat are from bad readings or errors.

You can compare the results of the two methods and you get basically the same result.

This is not correct. The margin of error value is not calculated from the data at all, but from the variance.

You are discussing normalization of data using a paired randR (the bell curve), not the margin of error value.

Temperatures can vary as steeply as 20 degF per mile. This steep gradient has been observed on numerous occasions, and is probably a conservative observation.

If a thermometer is as little as 1 mile away from another, it's temperature can show a 20 deg F difference. That's +-20 deg F per mile.

NASA uses the larger number of thermometers in their claim, so we will use that. That's approximately 7500 thermometers, scattered around the world. They are not uniformly space (location grouping is significant). They are not read at the same time (time is significant), or by the same authority (reliability of data authority is significant).

Even if you:
a) space all 7500 thermometers uniformly
b) read them all at the same time by the same authority

You get one thermometer for an area the size of Virginia. Just one mile away from that thermometer, it could be +-20 deg F different. You can easily get this across storm fronts, due to mountain wave compression effects, or even comparing asphalt to nearby forest.

By the time you get to the next actual thermometer, variance between them is so high as to produce a margin of error that is greater than the highest and lowest surface temperatures ever measured on Earth. This is the practical limiting high limit of margin of error. These values are +134 deg F, and -128 deg F; a difference of 262 deg F, or +-131 deg F.

In other words, if you took the mean of all 7500 thermometers uniformly spaced at the same time, you still have to contend with a margin of error +-131 deg F; or the maximum possible margin of error.

In other words, mathematically speaking, you are guessing.

Margin of error is not affected by the number of samples, other than the number taken applied against the declared variance (20 deg F per mile).

The actual thermometers are not uniformly spaced. They are concentrated near populated areas and are along roads (they need to be serviced). The effects of being near populated areas is unknown.

They are not read at the same time. The atmosphere is a fluid. Storms move. The Sun moves across the sky and only illuminates half the Earth at a time. Air and ocean currents shift in position all the time. The condition of the Earth is different with each second.

Satellites are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. To determine it, you must first accurately know the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
29-06-2020 22:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
GreenEggsNham wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
GreenEggsNham wrote:
And, just to add, we are talking about global temperatures being quoted down to 0.01C - that would mean an error of 0.0005C for 95% confidence. Anything less fails the significance test. I am not sure how you could calibrate to and maintain this level of accuracy but your entire setup would need to be at constant temperature and pressure. Just because a machine gives a number does not mean its reliable in any way


This is how statistics work.

You have a measurement of (say) 100 but with a random uncertainty of +/-1 then your result is 100 +/-1. Yes?

Now you take 100 different independent readings of that same quantity each with that same random uncertainty. If the average result is still 100, what do you think the uncertainty is on that average is? Still +/- 1? It is not.

The uncertainty is reduced by the square root of the number of samples. So the result would be 100 +/- 0.1.

10,000 samples 0.01 and so on.

There are literally millions of measurements that go into the calculation that is why the results are so consistent. It is a bit more sophisticated than that because they divide the data into cells so not to bias the result to areas with large numbers of sites (e.g., cities) compared to others with few (oceans).

There is a second independent way to check the result without even knowing the uncertainty on an individual measurement - monte carlo. This applied to gridded data like the climate data is. Here you divide the data up into cells containing the average temperature data from many different sites (where you have them). You then combine the result from all the different cells to get the average. The uncertainty is then the standard deviation of the average divided by the square root of the number of cells (minus 1).

You then randomly reassign the grid, changing the size and location of the cells and do it again. You do this thousands of times and look at the distribution of the results (usually a bell curve). The peak of the distribution is the overall average and the half width at half maximum is the uncertainty. This technique also allows you to fill in missing or unreliable data and test how that assumption affects your result (increasing the uncertainty). You can also identify results ahat are from bad readings or errors.

You can compare the results of the two methods and you get basically the same result.


maybe you should reread my post. I hold a degree in Chemistry and another in Chemical & Process Engineering - as such I am fully aware of the statistics approach.

You are talking about statistical sampling and some kind of normal distribution.

What is the distribution of temperature? Not normal. Its random if sampled once a day, to an extent. But is dependent on what happened earlier when you look at a temperature trace.

This is fine for some things like the size of ball bearings on a production line but not temperatures taken using different equipment and in different places at different time etc. Even for ball bearings you have to determine the type of distribution and then apply the correct statistical formula and hope the distribution does not change.

Statistical error is not the same as measurement error. Statistical error is for the fact that a sample is representing a larger population and the accuracy of your "sample". Whereas I was talking about the experimental error associated with taking a measurement

I fall back to my days in a laboratory studying chemistry. When you take an experimental measurement there is a measurement error, usually +/- half of the graduated scale. So i burette marked at 0.1ml scale has an error of +/- 0.05ml. A pipette has a much lower error, I cannot recall but it depends on the volume.

So when you add experimental data (to get an average) you also have to add the error for each measurement. This is quite logical, ie you collect 10ml from your burette 10 times each 10ml is +/- 0.05ml so you now have 100ml +/-0.5ml
https://thefactfactor.com/facts/pure_science/physics/propagation-of-errors/9502/

Now the concept of average. Again this is fine for measurements of the same thing i.e. temperature in chicago at 3pm every day. But it is not valid to average temperatures in different places. As per my example that average temperature between the equator (at 30C) and Antarctica (at-30C) is meaningless, the average is zero.

You cannot, and I repeat, cannot increase the accuracy of experimental data to below that of the reading error. AND, if you average (the same place, same time etc) the error on your average must not be less than the largest error on your recorded data. Even then a hot or cold change 10 minutes before your recording makes a joke of your data.

Applying statistical analysis to temperature data is meaningless


It is quite possible, but you must declare the variance used to get your margin of error figured out. This is the part that these idiots don't get.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
29-06-2020 22:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
GreenEggsNham wrote:
This is slightly off topic but still relevant in terms of the way statistics are used.

Maybe our statistical expert DKTRS can explain what is going on here.

It highlights the disconnect between peoples understanding of science (measurements) and statistics (samples) and shows that the famous quote is still valid today.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

NSIDC report sea ice extent for the poles. In both regions they ignore one of the fundamental principles of science - present all of the data. If there are errors, talk about them and explain.

So they have averages for various time periods. 1979-2009, 1981-2010, 1991-2000, 2001-2010, 2011-2019.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

So why dont the present one average for all of the data 1979-2019? They appear to believe that by showing recent data in 10 year groups they can highlight warming. While ignoring that selectively averaging data to suit you agenda is data fraud.

They supply a 2 standard deviations option but this is based only on the 1979-2009 data and so does not represent the data in full. As such this band does not represent that actual variance of the collected data.

Why? [ok, I didnt need to ask that]

Because when you examine all of the data is is 100% clear that despite claims of massive ice lost from the Arctic, the data does not support this claim. Sure there is the occasional year when the summer minimum and winter maximum dip outside the 2 standard deviation zone, but there are also years when the minimum and maximum are high but we never hear this. If the standard deviations included ALL DATA, as it should do, this would not be the case.

They are denying statistics in the belief that a ten year sample can be taken as proof of a warming claim by ignoring that without incorporating all data they are cutting off the natural variability that the data reflects. This is the thing, statistical analysis allows for variance and that is why changes in data need to reach a certain level before they become significant - apparently not when it comes to proving warming, it is always significant even when its not.

If you select "show all years" and overlay the 2 SD band the data during the summer dip is nowhere near the upper limit - this is impossible, unless the 2 SD band has been fudged. And when you look at the bottom of the band it becomes obvious the band has been shifted upwards or is only valid for 1979-2009.

When you have 40 years of data, to present it in 10 year chunks is nothing more than deception if you dont also present the all data average and corresponding standard deviation band for this data.

And then there is the assumption that sea ice at the poles follows a normal distribution....mmm
And that 40 years of data is definitive of changes....
And that satellite data started in 1973 but they dont want to disclose that data....


This gets into the 'what is change' question of how to define the phrase 'global warming' or 'climate change'. A change is a delta, measured between two points in time. They cannot seem to figure out what two points in time to use, why those two points in time are significant, or why any other two points in time are not significant.

Until one can declare these and justify them, 'warming' or 'cooling' or 'change' don't mean anything.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
29-06-2020 23:05
James___
★★★★★
(3185)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenEggsNham wrote:
This is slightly off topic but still relevant in terms of the way statistics are used.

Maybe our statistical expert DKTRS can explain what is going on here.

It highlights the disconnect between peoples understanding of science (measurements) and statistics (samples) and shows that the famous quote is still valid today.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

NSIDC report sea ice extent for the poles. In both regions they ignore one of the fundamental principles of science - present all of the data. If there are errors, talk about them and explain.

So they have averages for various time periods. 1979-2009, 1981-2010, 1991-2000, 2001-2010, 2011-2019.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

So why dont the present one average for all of the data 1979-2019? They appear to believe that by showing recent data in 10 year groups they can highlight warming. While ignoring that selectively averaging data to suit you agenda is data fraud.

They supply a 2 standard deviations option but this is based only on the 1979-2009 data and so does not represent the data in full. As such this band does not represent that actual variance of the collected data.

Why? [ok, I didnt need to ask that]

Because when you examine all of the data is is 100% clear that despite claims of massive ice lost from the Arctic, the data does not support this claim. Sure there is the occasional year when the summer minimum and winter maximum dip outside the 2 standard deviation zone, but there are also years when the minimum and maximum are high but we never hear this. If the standard deviations included ALL DATA, as it should do, this would not be the case.

They are denying statistics in the belief that a ten year sample can be taken as proof of a warming claim by ignoring that without incorporating all data they are cutting off the natural variability that the data reflects. This is the thing, statistical analysis allows for variance and that is why changes in data need to reach a certain level before they become significant - apparently not when it comes to proving warming, it is always significant even when its not.

If you select "show all years" and overlay the 2 SD band the data during the summer dip is nowhere near the upper limit - this is impossible, unless the 2 SD band has been fudged. And when you look at the bottom of the band it becomes obvious the band has been shifted upwards or is only valid for 1979-2009.

When you have 40 years of data, to present it in 10 year chunks is nothing more than deception if you dont also present the all data average and corresponding standard deviation band for this data.

And then there is the assumption that sea ice at the poles follows a normal distribution....mmm
And that 40 years of data is definitive of changes....
And that satellite data started in 1973 but they dont want to disclose that data....


This gets into the 'what is change' question of how to define the phrase 'global warming' or 'climate change'. A change is a delta, measured between two points in time. They cannot seem to figure out what two points in time to use, why those two points in time are significant, or why any other two points in time are not significant.

Until one can declare these and justify them, 'warming' or 'cooling' or 'change' don't mean anything.



And we're back to the "No Fun Zone".
29-06-2020 23:54
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1217)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
This gets into the 'what is change' question of how to define the phrase 'global warming' or 'climate change'. A change is a delta, measured between two points in time. They cannot seem to figure out what two points in time to use, why those two points in time are significant, or why any other two points in time are not significant.

Until one can declare these and justify them, 'warming' or 'cooling' or 'change' don't mean anything.



And we're back to the "No Fun Zone".

... or otherwise known as the "Science Zone". Maybe it's "no fun" to you since you don't understand it very well?? At least back when I had MUCH less understanding of it, I didn't find it to be very "fun" either.
30-06-2020 00:44
James___
★★★★★
(3185)
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
This gets into the 'what is change' question of how to define the phrase 'global warming' or 'climate change'. A change is a delta, measured between two points in time. They cannot seem to figure out what two points in time to use, why those two points in time are significant, or why any other two points in time are not significant.

Until one can declare these and justify them, 'warming' or 'cooling' or 'change' don't mean anything.



And we're back to the "No Fun Zone".

... or otherwise known as the "Science Zone". Maybe it's "no fun" to you since you don't understand it very well?? At least back when I had MUCH less understanding of it, I didn't find it to be very "fun" either.



And yet IBDM's post from another "quadrant" is one of my favourite posts in this forum. I've noticed that no one found it comparable to a view from Mars let alone another part of space.
IBDM, we might have a problem. I simply loved your post. And yet no one can imagine a view from another planet and much less from the Delta Quadrant. And in math, all Delta means is change from A to B. What is the difference between them? That is Delta.
It's possible that your post is what this forum needed. That is why some people like me like science.

p.s., in Star Trek Voyager, Delta is referenced as light years from the Earth. Why the Delta Quadrant has defined parameters. And in math, Delta is represented as a triangle. And yet light years is a linear value. If you want to discuss this association we can. But then we'd be getting into the No Fun Zone.
Edited on 30-06-2020 00:53
30-06-2020 03:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13323)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
This gets into the 'what is change' question of how to define the phrase 'global warming' or 'climate change'. A change is a delta, measured between two points in time. They cannot seem to figure out what two points in time to use, why those two points in time are significant, or why any other two points in time are not significant.

Until one can declare these and justify them, 'warming' or 'cooling' or 'change' don't mean anything.



And we're back to the "No Fun Zone".

... or otherwise known as the "Science Zone". Maybe it's "no fun" to you since you don't understand it very well?? At least back when I had MUCH less understanding of it, I didn't find it to be very "fun" either.



And yet IBDM's post from another "quadrant" is one of my favourite posts in this forum. I've noticed that no one found it comparable to a view from Mars let alone another part of space.
IBDM, we might have a problem. I simply loved your post. And yet no one can imagine a view from another planet and much less from the Delta Quadrant. And in math, all Delta means is change from A to B. What is the difference between them? That is Delta.
It's possible that your post is what this forum needed. That is why some people like me like science.

p.s., in Star Trek Voyager, Delta is referenced as light years from the Earth. Why the Delta Quadrant has defined parameters. And in math, Delta is represented as a triangle. And yet light years is a linear value. If you want to discuss this association we can. But then we'd be getting into the No Fun Zone.

Delta is simply a Greek letter. It is the fourth letter of their alphabet. In mathematics, it is used to denote a small change. It usually shows up when a value is changing because another independent variable is changing. Yes, the Greeks draw the delta character as a triangle.
The word DELTA is also the ICAO phonetic standard word for the letter 'D', so Delta Quadrant is simply D Quadrant.

It sounds cool, which is why scifi shows like Star Trek tend to use it.

ICAO phonetic alphabet:
Alpha (greek letter)
Bravo (pilots are brave! HAR!)
Charlie (Everyone knows a Charlie)
Delta (greek letter)
Echo (what you get when your radio is in need of repair)
Foxtrot (why would trotting fox have anything to do with airplanes or ships??)
Golf (I guess pilots like to golf!)
Hotel (where most pilots live)
India (honorable mention?)
Juliet (favorite girlfriend?)
Kilo (what you smuggle with your airplane)
Lima (some pilots are too full of beans)
Mike (everyone knows a Mike)
November (what it looks like when you're in a rain cloud)
Oscar (a brand of hot dog when a pilot wants to splurge for his meal)
Papa (a bear referred to by truckers, when describing a State trooper).
Quebec (an easy to remember place, where they tend to discourage the use of English, including phonetic alphabets like this one)
Romeo (goes with Juliet)
Sierra (for western pilots)
Tango (this was actually supposed to be 'tangled', but their tongue got tied)
Uniform (the spiffy outfit worn by airline pilots until they find out how much the job sucks and they quit)
Victor (old WW2 acronym, short for 'victorious')
Whiskey (what to drink if you make it down without killing yourself or anyone else)
Xray (better sounding they xylophone)
Yankee (for all pilots but those in the southeast U.S., where its an insult instead. Southeastern pilots sometimes use Yeeha or Y'all)
Zulu (a place not in the U.S., and a timezone not in the U.S. Go figure)

For digits, they use:
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Niner (Nine sounds too much like Five on crappy radios, such as what aircraft use)
Zero

Pilots are otherwise an informal bunch, and so are air traffic controllers. Instead of 'over' they just stop talking. Instead of 'out' they just say 'seeya', or similar wording, if they say anything at all.

Current METAR at SeaTac airport:
KSEA 292353Z 21013KT 10SM FEW030 SCT100 BKN250 22/13 A2998 RMK AO2 SLP158 T02170128 10222 20156 56009
or:
KSEA automated weather observation two niner two three five three zulu. Wind, two one zero at one three, ten miles visibility, sky condition: few three thousand, scattered one zero thousand, broken two five zero thousand. Temperature two two, dew point three. Altimeter two niner niner eight.

More than once I've heard a controller at an air show get on the horn and ask, "Red and white Cessna, what are you doing..??".

Never a good sign.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
30-06-2020 03:52
James___
★★★★★
(3185)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
This gets into the 'what is change' question of how to define the phrase 'global warming' or 'climate change'. A change is a delta, measured between two points in time. They cannot seem to figure out what two points in time to use, why those two points in time are significant, or why any other two points in time are not significant.

Until one can declare these and justify them, 'warming' or 'cooling' or 'change' don't mean anything.



And we're back to the "No Fun Zone".

... or otherwise known as the "Science Zone". Maybe it's "no fun" to you since you don't understand it very well?? At least back when I had MUCH less understanding of it, I didn't find it to be very "fun" either.



And yet IBDM's post from another "quadrant" is one of my favourite posts in this forum. I've noticed that no one found it comparable to a view from Mars let alone another part of space.
IBDM, we might have a problem. I simply loved your post. And yet no one can imagine a view from another planet and much less from the Delta Quadrant. And in math, all Delta means is change from A to B. What is the difference between them? That is Delta.
It's possible that your post is what this forum needed. That is why some people like me like science.

p.s., in Star Trek Voyager, Delta is referenced as light years from the Earth. Why the Delta Quadrant has defined parameters. And in math, Delta is represented as a triangle. And yet light years is a linear value. If you want to discuss this association we can. But then we'd be getting into the No Fun Zone.

Delta is simply a Greek letter. It is the fourth letter of their alphabet. In mathematics, it is used to denote a small change. It usually shows up when a value is changing because another independent variable is changing. Yes, the Greeks draw the delta character as a triangle.
The word DELTA is also the ICAO phonetic standard word for the letter 'D', so Delta Quadrant is simply D Quadrant.

It sounds cool, which is why scifi shows like Star Trek tend to use it.

ICAO phonetic alphabet:
Alpha (greek letter)
Bravo (pilots are brave! HAR!)
Charlie (Everyone knows a Charlie)
Delta (greek letter)
Echo (what you get when your radio is in need of repair)
Foxtrot (why would trotting fox have anything to do with airplanes or ships??)
Golf (I guess pilots like to golf!)
Hotel (where most pilots live)
India (honorable mention?)
Juliet (favorite girlfriend?)
Kilo (what you smuggle with your airplane)
Lima (some pilots are too full of beans)
Mike (everyone knows a Mike)
November (what it looks like when you're in a rain cloud)
Oscar (a brand of hot dog when a pilot wants to splurge for his meal)
Papa (a bear referred to by truckers, when describing a State trooper).
Quebec (an easy to remember place, where they tend to discourage the use of English, including phonetic alphabets like this one)
Romeo (goes with Juliet)
Sierra (for western pilots)
Tango (this was actually supposed to be 'tangled', but their tongue got tied)
Uniform (the spiffy outfit worn by airline pilots until they find out how much the job sucks and they quit)
Victor (old WW2 acronym, short for 'victorious')
Whiskey (what to drink if you make it down without killing yourself or anyone else)
Xray (better sounding they xylophone)
Yankee (for all pilots but those in the southeast U.S., where its an insult instead. Southeastern pilots sometimes use Yeeha or Y'all)
Zulu (a place not in the U.S., and a timezone not in the U.S. Go figure)

For digits, they use:
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Niner (Nine sounds too much like Five on crappy radios, such as what aircraft use)
Zero

Pilots are otherwise an informal bunch, and so are air traffic controllers. Instead of 'over' they just stop talking. Instead of 'out' they just say 'seeya', or similar wording, if they say anything at all.

Current METAR at SeaTac airport:
KSEA 292353Z 21013KT 10SM FEW030 SCT100 BKN250 22/13 A2998 RMK AO2 SLP158 T02170128 10222 20156 56009
or:
KSEA automated weather observation two niner two three five three zulu. Wind, two one zero at one three, ten miles visibility, sky condition: few three thousand, scattered one zero thousand, broken two five zero thousand. Temperature two two, dew point three. Altimeter two niner niner eight.

More than once I've heard a controller at an air show get on the horn and ask, "Red and white Cessna, what are you doing..??".

Never a good sign.


When few three thousand, scattered one zero thousand, broken two five zero thousand. Temperature two two, dew point three.
Why is Temperature two two, dew point three 22/13?
Wouldn't it be Temperature two two, dew point one three instead?
Details are a beotch, like what quadrant we're in.
It's not personal ITN. In church, you'd be forgiven for making such a mistake. But we're not in church.

BTW, you probably dew no about flying a plane. But dew point is either 13 Celsius or 3 Celsius.
I mean at temperature 22º, in F, there is no dew point. But at 22º C., there is a dew point. Below freezing, there is no moisture in the atmosphere. Why what you stated is in Celsius. It included a dew point.
God, could you make this any easier? I mean the people in this forum wouldn't have a clue. Most have no idea what you posted. You really do have a pilot's license, right?
This is awesome. Now between you and IBDM, we might discuss something better than CO2.

Edited on 30-06-2020 04:23
30-06-2020 04:56
James___
★★★★★
(3185)
@All, if you don't get it, when your wings freeze over, you don't fly. Everyone dies. This is why dew point matters. Someone's life depends on it. And in my post, I pointed out that mistake. Know your dew point. If not, then you won't know to expect icing.
Ya know ITN, I used to think you were Pilchuck. Now I think Inuit. A Pilchuck wouldn't know the first thing about flying a plane. An Inuit would. A basic difference between people.
If the rest of you don't get it, it's flying in the bush in Alaska. Icing of the wings would matter. In Washington state, it's warm enough so icing might not be much of an issue.
Edited on 30-06-2020 05:37
30-06-2020 05:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7479)
Into the Night wrote: Delta is simply a Greek letter. It is the fourth letter of their alphabet. In mathematics, it is used to denote a small change.

Actually, in mathematics, engineering, business scheduling and in the government (especially the military) "Delta" really just means "change" no matter how big or small. In all cases but mathematics the capital is used, i.e. Δ, whereas in mathematics the lower case is more common, i.e. δ, ... because deep down most people hate mathematicians.

In mathematics, however, it's "ε" (Epsilon, lower case) that represents a very small quantity. "ε" is used to symbolize a value that is specifically not zero, i.e. a non-zero positive value, that nontheless can otherwise be treated as a value between zero and negligible. In mathematics contexts the phraseology "some ε greater than zero" is common.

Therefore, if you want to express a very small change, you get major bonus points for writing/saying "Delta-sub-Epsilon" or "δ-sub-ε" where subscripts aren't used, e.g. Climate-Debate, but is correctly written as just a lower-case Delta with a subscript lower-case Epsilon. This emphasizes "we're talking about a small change that could very well be disregarded or treated as zero."

Fun Fact: In calculus, everything depends on the definition of "limit" and the definition of "continuity" and both of those are defined in terms of δ-sub-ε.

Into the Night wrote: Pilots are otherwise an informal bunch, and so are air traffic controllers.

But it's also how you can tell when a pilot is, or used to be, a fighter pilot. Everybody else essentially "requests permission" from the tower whereas fighter pilots like to bark instructions to the tower.

US Military pilots use "Mike" for both "miles" and "minutes" and then radio in to base ops that they are "inbound, thrity-five Mike away." Which is it, dude? I don't know why they still say "Clicks" instead of "Kilo" for kilometers ... perhaps because it might be confused for a call sign.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
New High Temperature Records Again Outpace Lows3102-09-2020 23:24
New Temperature High Recorded in Death Valley1919-08-2020 02:27
Another week, more new high temperature records1117-08-2020 01:52
Measuring the Earth's Surface Temperature501-07-2020 21:45
Once Again, High Temperature Records Outpace Low by a Wide Margin429-06-2020 21:40
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact