"The temperature record is unreliable!"

Into the Night wrote:
Attempting to use a derivative to calculate an average value outside that derivative is a math error.

Also wouldn't work. Some rockets are heavier, take different kinds of engines with different delays, may be multistaged or multiengine, fly at different speeds and reach heights less than the little spit that took off fast and fell fast (tumble recovery), even though they took a log longer to do it.

I already pointed that out. I am using a gradient of a possible +-20 deg F, since that's what I've observed.

jwoodward48 wrote:
But we do know that some error is steady. If I stick my observatory beneath a cool overhang, that cool overhang will continue to be cooler than the rest of the region tomorrow, and the day after that.

Not necessarily. It will make no difference on a dark overcast day, for instance.

jwoodward48 wrote:
This means that the margin of change for the derivative is less than the margin of error of the absolute measurements. This is why we use anomalies.

You cannot just choose a convenient population for your margin of error.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Also, as a reply to your "temperature changes greatly over distance" point and example, keep in mind that outliers do exist. This is fine. The average temperature change over distance is far less than what you observed.

How do you know? You cannot calculate that average either.

jwoodward48 wrote:
No! I expect you hand it to me on a golden platter!

jwoodward48 wrote: This is why we use anomalies.

jwoodward48 wrote: Also, as a reply to your "temperature changes greatly over distance" point and example, keep in mind that outliers do exist. This is fine. The average temperature change over distance is far less than what you observed.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No, it is you that is missing the point. You cannot claim a change unless you know the base of that change. That's absolute values.

Of course you can measure a change without knowing the absolute values.

Let us define
T1 = Absolute average temperature at time 1 (unknown)
T2 = Absolute average temperature at time 2 (unknown)
M1 = Measured average temperature at time 1
M2 = Measured average temperature at time 2
D = Difference between measured and absolute average temperature values (unknown)

So M1 = T1 + D and M2 = T2 + D



Now, the change C in temperature between time 1 and time 2 is given by

C = T2 - T1

Bur T2 = M2 - D and T1 = M1 - D, so

C = (M2 - D) - (M1 - D) = M2 - M1

Hence we don't need to know the absolute values T1 and T2.

You don't have a usable T1, T2, M1, or M2.

T1 and T2 are the unknown averages of the real temperatures; I see no reason why we shouldn't assign a label to these quantities. M1 and M2 are simply the averages of the measured temperatures, and I've just shown why we can use them.

You are also attempting to declare Mx is somehow different than Tx.

Well, yes, that's precisely because we can't accurately measure the real average temperatures. The measured temperatures will differ from the actual temperatures by some small error, which I've called D.

Which means, of course, that you are making shit up.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No, it is you that is missing the point. You cannot claim a change unless you know the base of that change. That's absolute values.

Of course you can measure a change without knowing the absolute values.

Let us define
T1 = Absolute average temperature at time 1 (unknown)
T2 = Absolute average temperature at time 2 (unknown)
M1 = Measured average temperature at time 1
M2 = Measured average temperature at time 2
D = Difference between measured and absolute average temperature values (unknown)

So M1 = T1 + D and M2 = T2 + D

Now, the change C in temperature between time 1 and time 2 is given by

C = T2 - T1

Bur T2 = M2 - D and T1 = M1 - D, so

C = (M2 - D) - (M1 - D) = M2 - M1

Hence we don't need to know the absolute values T1 and T2.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No, it is you that is missing the point. You cannot claim a change unless you know the base of that change. That's absolute values.

Of course you can measure a change without knowing the absolute values.

Let us define
T1 = Absolute average temperature at time 1 (unknown)
T2 = Absolute average temperature at time 2 (unknown)
M1 = Measured average temperature at time 1
M2 = Measured average temperature at time 2
D = Difference between measured and absolute average temperature values (unknown)

So M1 = T1 + D and M2 = T2 + D

Now, the change C in temperature between time 1 and time 2 is given by

C = T2 - T1

Bur T2 = M2 - D and T1 = M1 - D, so

C = (M2 - D) - (M1 - D) = M2 - M1

Hence we don't need to know the absolute values T1 and T2.

Let's fix your math.

You should have written:
T1 = Absolute average temperature at time 1 (unknown)
T2 = Absolute average temperature at time 2 (unknown)
C1 = Compute average temperature at time 1
C2 = Computed average temperature at time 2
Error1 = T1 - C1
Error2 = T2 - C2

Now, let's accurately presume your method of computing the average global temperature has an unusably high margin of error, ergo


ABS(Error1) could be very large
ABS(Error2) could be very large
C1 = Error1 - T1
C2 = Error2 - T2

AbsoluteTempDelta = T1 - T2

MeasuredTempDelta = C2 - C1 = (Error2 - T2) - (Error1 - T1)

DeltaError = ABS(AbsoluteTempDelta - MeasuredTempDelta)
= ABS( [T1 - T2] - [ (Error2 - T2) - (Error1 - T1) ] )
= ABS( [T1 - T2] - [ (Error2 - Error1 - T2 + T1) ] )
= ABS( T1 - T2 - Error2 + Error1 + T2 - T1 )
= ABS( Error1 - Error2 ) ... which could potentially be large as ABS(Error1) + ABS(Error2), both of which could be very large.

The error of the measured change could be unusably large.


.

IBdaMann wrote:In my typing haste I made some math errors in the above. Does anyone care?

Surface Detail wrote: You've confused systematic errors with random errors.

jwoodward48 wrote: The errors don't evaporate, but they do partially cancel out.

jwoodward48 wrote:It's a result of the physical nature of the error, like how a clock that runs 5 minutes ahead of true time can still be used to measure the length of time intervals.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:It's a result of the physical nature of the error, like how a clock that runs 5 minutes ahead of true time can still be used to measure the length of time intervals.

Bad example. A clock that is an unknown amount off of true time cannot used to tell what time it is to any usable accuracy.

An insufficient number of simultaneous thermometer readings to compute the earths average global temperature to any usable accuracy cannot be used to compute changes in earth's average global changes to any useful accuracy.

An insufficient number of simultaneous thermometer readings do not somehow cancel out their insufficiency error.
.

jwoodward48 wrote: But it can be used to tell the difference between two times with a usable accuracy.

jwoodward48 wrote: Which is why they aren't simultaneous. They're over time.

jwoodward48 wrote: And you still haven't listened - if the error is relatively constant, the derivative of the measurement has less error than the measurement itself.

jwoodward48 wrote: You haven't been listening. This is not what I said.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: But it can be used to tell the difference between two times with a usable accuracy.

Bad example. Time is the same everywhere. Thermometers can only measure temperature at one point and every point can differ in temperature from the next point.

Your clock example would be appropriate in a universe where time can differ at every single point on the earth.

jwoodward48 wrote: Which is why they aren't simultaneous. They're over time.

This is bad. You are totally lost.

Go back and re-read the posts and I'll be happy to address any specific areas of confusion.

[quote]jwoodward48 wrote: And you still haven't listened - if the error is relatively constant, the derivative of the measurement has less error than the measurement itself.

No. You apparently have no business in this particular conversation.

Go learn some math.

I will gladly help you with any specific areas of confusion.

jwoodward48 wrote: You haven't been listening. This is not what I said.

Your wording to the effect of claiming that I am the problem is bogus.

You are very unclear even when you are not gibbering and babbling.

You are the problem.

You don't get to EVADE clearly stating your position and then hide behind the phrase "that's not what I said."

If you aren't going to be clear then you are saying whatever I say you are saying.

Be clear or live with the ramifications.

jwoodward48 wrote: *puts on his IB hat*

jwoodward48 wrote: Yeah, I'm done. Done in the sense of goodbye, have a nice life, see you never.

jwoodward48 wrote: This is absolutely pointless. Scream and rant all you want, I'm not reading another post here.

jwoodward48 wrote: Of all my hobbies, this forum is the only one which brings me anxiety and anger

jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, the little IB is trying to be condescending! How cute.

Yeah, I'm done. Done in the sense of goodbye, have a nice life, see you never. This is absolutely pointless. Scream and rant all you want, I'm not reading another post here. Of all my hobbies, this forum is the only one which brings me anxiety and anger - why would I stay? And you'd never change your mind or admit to being wrong, I can see that now.

Do try to pop that bubble sometime, IB. The world is really quite interesting when it's not black and white.