My god... I just had the most horrible idea.

[Hiro Protagonist]

The graph on wikipedia looked more presentable than the one on Nasa's site, it was really for your benifit. You can view the one on Nasa's site here: Clicky.

 

The readings from this dataset are taken from more than one station. You can read here about quality Clicky.

 

And again you haven't addressed any points. You post to a graph and a picture of 2008 which is questionable. Also on the second link, they make up figures as a best guess and even their research is questionable:

 

in five cases a segment of 2-10 years was deleted from the record, and approximately 20 individual station months were deleted.

 

We also modified the records of two stations that had obvious discontinuities.

 

Lihue had an apparent discontinuity in its temperature record around 1950. On the basis of minimization of the discrepancy with its few neighboring stations, we added 0.8

[Moose]

It all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In fact it would conern me if they didn't address such points. No conspiracy here I'm afraid.

[Nemo0071]

If I knew this was going to be a global warming discussion, I'd be following the topic from the beginning. Oh well...

 

 

edit:

In terms of global warming, the question is not "is it happening" it's "Did Aye Dooo THAT!?"

 

Neatly put.

+1

Edited June 8, 2010 by Nemo0071

[Hiro Protagonist]

It all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In fact it would conern me if they didn't address such points. No conspiracy here I'm afraid.

 

So you just accept best guesses and estimates and made up figures. okay.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Hiro Protagonist

[Moose]

I think you're exagerating. When I was doing my physics degree you'd actually be penalised for not doing identifying results that would otherwise have an unjustifiable influence over the outcome of the experiment. That's a bit different from what you probably learnt at high school, that making up results is bad, don't do it etc.

[213374U]

Implications which include the loss of life, loss of territory, and loss of strategic interests which would constitute reasons for war at any other time.

And unlike AGW, current population growth rates will, with almost absolute certainty, cause all of that. And sooner, too.

 

X DOWs Z -- Casus Belli: "You are making way too many babies!"

 

 

I think you're exagerating. When I was doing my physics degree you'd actually be penalised for not doing identifying results that would otherwise have an unjustifiable influence over the outcome of the experiment. That's a bit different from what you probably learnt at high school, that making up results is bad, don't do it etc.

"Nobody move, I'm a scientist!" Yeeeeah. Throwing credentials in people's faces never gets old, especially if there is no way they are going to be verified.

 

I'm sure they taught you (because they did teach me, when I was failing my physics degree), that the less/less reliable measurements one has, the worse one's estimations become and the greater the possible deviation from one's predictions (error propagation, etc). I mean, I doubt they had satellites in orbit measuring the temperature in Antarctica in the 1890's. If the global temp average chart (worth its own thread) was from the 1950's on instead of starting in 1880, people would have a much harder time attacking such estimates... but then, local extrema kinda **** up the whole thing, what with the timescales involved and all. Not to mention that this is pretty much nth-hand data for the scientists involved in making predictions.

[Gorth]

Wasn't there somebody once who claimed they could do climate analysis based on ice core samples from arctic areas?

[Hiro Protagonist]

Wasn't there somebody once who claimed they could do climate analysis based on ice core samples from arctic areas?

 

Yeah, that was Al Gore.

[Irrelevant]

The greenhouse effect.

somewhat unrelated:

Also, I remenber some dude saying that satellites sucked at knowing temperatures(I assume because of the atmophere and its in space?)

I also remenber the same dude saying it was stupid to take a picture of some shipping yard in a foreign country with a satellite because it would much cheaper to just send a dude a with a digital camera.

[Calax]

And to a degree you can... on inactive glaciers you can yank out a core sample and be able to figure the Co2 levels in the past and approximate temperature based on it's composition.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaENQj77iPA

[Oblarg]

It all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In fact it would conern me if they didn't address such points. No conspiracy here I'm afraid.

 

So you just accept best guesses and estimates and made up figures. okay.

 

Whatever you choose for your career, don't be a statistician. You'd hate it.

[Amentep]

It all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In fact it would conern me if they didn't address such points. No conspiracy here I'm afraid.

 

So you just accept best guesses and estimates and made up figures. okay.

 

Whatever you choose for your career, don't be a statistician. You'd hate it.

 

Statistics should be very clear in methodology in gathering data and in the margin of error created from extrapolating the data into the broader population. There are very clear guidelines as to how to do this and generally speaking the mathematics is sound (the typical problem with "lies, damn lies and statistics" lies in the methodology (non random samples is a big problem), trying to obfuscate margin of errors or poor application of the data to non-supportable results).

 

Anyhow, good statistics are fairly different from best guesses and will have some logic behind their provided information.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Most of the surface temperature record increase comes from suspicious "adjustments", as well as other questionable practices, like changing the make up of the surveyed temperature stations over time and siting stations in urban heat islands. Due to the secrecy and dissimulation of the global warming community these records have been hard to check in the past, but are being looked at now, so we should have a more objective picture in a couple of years.

[Oblarg]

It all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In fact it would conern me if they didn't address such points. No conspiracy here I'm afraid.

 

So you just accept best guesses and estimates and made up figures. okay.

 

Whatever you choose for your career, don't be a statistician. You'd hate it.

 

Statistics should be very clear in methodology in gathering data and in the margin of error created from extrapolating the data into the broader population. There are very clear guidelines as to how to do this and generally speaking the mathematics is sound (the typical problem with "lies, damn lies and statistics" lies in the methodology (non random samples is a big problem), trying to obfuscate margin of errors or poor application of the data to non-supportable results).

 

Anyhow, good statistics are fairly different from best guesses and will have some logic behind their provided information.

 

Statistics has more fudging numbers and making questionable assumptions than pretty much any other branch of mathematics.

[Amentep]

It all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In fact it would conern me if they didn't address such points. No conspiracy here I'm afraid.

 

So you just accept best guesses and estimates and made up figures. okay.

 

Whatever you choose for your career, don't be a statistician. You'd hate it.

 

Statistics should be very clear in methodology in gathering data and in the margin of error created from extrapolating the data into the broader population. There are very clear guidelines as to how to do this and generally speaking the mathematics is sound (the typical problem with "lies, damn lies and statistics" lies in the methodology (non random samples is a big problem), trying to obfuscate margin of errors or poor application of the data to non-supportable results).

 

Anyhow, good statistics are fairly different from best guesses and will have some logic behind their provided information.

 

Statistics has more fudging numbers and making questionable assumptions than pretty much any other branch of mathematics.

 

The problems with statistics is typically more a problem of application and data gathering than in the mathematics part of it. That's why people can distort what statistics mean for what they want them to mean and why you should take them with a grain of salt if not presented with methodology and margin of error (and once you read the methodology you may still want to take them with a grain of salt).

 

This is important to this discussion, in my mind, because the debate over global warming isn't really the numbers per se, but how the numbers are gathered, whether the numbers are relevant, and whether they mean what we think they mean. Which is the same problem with statistical data.

[Monte Carlo]

Al Gore, like, invented the internet. So if he wants to dig up bits of ice to convince me the world is melting then I'm all up for that.

[Calax]

Al Gore, like, invented the internet. So if he wants to dig up bits of ice to convince me the world is melting then I'm all up for that.

watch my link above ;P

[Orogun01]

Again it must be said that there isn't proof that this is because of human interference, these mini-Ice Ages seem to happen at intervals. The most recent one during the middle ages. So Al Gore can take his manbearpig elsewhere.

[Calax]

Again it must be said that there isn't proof that this is because of human interference, these mini-Ice Ages seem to happen at intervals. The most recent one during the middle ages. So Al Gore can take his manbearpig elsewhere.

Wasn't that one preciptated by a MASSIVE volcano that blocked enough sunlight that there literally was 0 sunlight for an entire year?

[Oblarg]

It all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In fact it would conern me if they didn't address such points. No conspiracy here I'm afraid.

 

So you just accept best guesses and estimates and made up figures. okay.

 

Whatever you choose for your career, don't be a statistician. You'd hate it.

 

Statistics should be very clear in methodology in gathering data and in the margin of error created from extrapolating the data into the broader population. There are very clear guidelines as to how to do this and generally speaking the mathematics is sound (the typical problem with "lies, damn lies and statistics" lies in the methodology (non random samples is a big problem), trying to obfuscate margin of errors or poor application of the data to non-supportable results).

 

Anyhow, good statistics are fairly different from best guesses and will have some logic behind their provided information.

 

Statistics has more fudging numbers and making questionable assumptions than pretty much any other branch of mathematics.

 

The problems with statistics is typically more a problem of application and data gathering than in the mathematics part of it. That's why people can distort what statistics mean for what they want them to mean and why you should take them with a grain of salt if not presented with methodology and margin of error (and once you read the methodology you may still want to take them with a grain of salt).

 

This is important to this discussion, in my mind, because the debate over global warming isn't really the numbers per se, but how the numbers are gathered, whether the numbers are relevant, and whether they mean what we think they mean. Which is the same problem with statistical data.

 

It's more accurate to say that the mathematics part of it only works if your application and data gathering are sound. The mathematics assumes that you are sampling correctly, and that the samples you get are at least somewhat representative of the population, etc.

[Zoraptor]

Again it must be said that there isn't proof that this is because of human interference, these mini-Ice Ages seem to happen at intervals. The most recent one during the middle ages. So Al Gore can take his manbearpig elsewhere.

Wasn't that one preciptated by a MASSIVE volcano that blocked enough sunlight that there literally was 0 sunlight for an entire year?

You're most likely thinking of the "year with no summer" after Krakatoa, in the late 19th century. You got a lot of oddities like the Thames freezing over in London that year.

[Amentep]

It's more accurate to say that the mathematics part of it only works if your application and data gathering are sound. The mathematics assumes that you are sampling correctly, and that the samples you get are at least somewhat representative of the population, etc.

 

I'm not sure if its more accurate, but it is a very good summary of the situation.