Electric Earthquake : Man Made Disasters
Bush Views Shift on Climate Change
Pres. BUSH: We need new power plants. We need an aggressive,
forward-thinking energy policy that balances the needs of our
environment with the needs of the people of the country. I felt the Kyoto Treaty was unrealistic. It was not based upon science.
The stated that mandates in the Kyoto Treaty would affect our economy
in a negative way. We do not know how much our climate could or will change in the future.
We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our
actions could impact it.
Anybody taking this in might compare it to the thrust of China's current energy policies
opit said...
Opit: Sea water temperature has been measured from ships and floats (look up Argo) as long as there have been surface stations and maybe longer thanks to navies and commercial sailing ships.
Second what is measured are anomalies, changes in temperature at locations on both land and sea.
Your ignorance is primarily your problem but we do have a small responsibility to educate you. Unfortunately we also expect that you are not exactly going to listen.
Second what is measured are anomalies, changes in temperature at locations on both land and sea.
Your ignorance is primarily your problem but we do have a small responsibility to educate you. Unfortunately we also expect that you are not exactly going to listen.
opit said...
What have also been measured by the Royal Navy is ocean currents. Can you educate me on how one can get a variation of less than a degree per century down to hundredths of a degree for variation in a global temperature for periods when no such accuracy was available ? How about ocean temperatures past the thermocline as they contribute to a baseline temperature which is also not available ? That's not a matter of not listening - but of paying attention to what is being ignored.
EliRabett said...
Same way you get high resolution from low resolution A/D converters, with the technique of oversampling and decimation used to increase the precision of a analog to digital converter
http://www.atmel.com/images/doc8003.pdf
Kevin O'Neill had a fine example of how this works
"As a metrologist, I'm surprised anyone would use metrology as an argument against averaging. One must take a series of readings and average if only to know the short-term repeatability to calculate uncertainties. And of course anyone with half a brain, metrologist or not, quickly understands that averaging adds precision.
Perhaps the mental stumbling block is that averaging readings from one device adds precision - not accuracy, but averaging multiple devices adds both precision and accuracy.
I once performed a simple experiment where I showed co-workers that I could get more accurate results from twenty-five 6 1/2 digit voltmeters than from one 8 1/2 digit voltmeter - even though the 8 1/2 digit voltmeter has a presumed accuracy 50 times better than the 6 1/2 digit voltmeters. I did 'cheat' a little by using statistical bootstrapping to increase the effective sample size from 25 to 1000. I would have to go back and find the final results, but the reduction in error was approximately from 85 ppm for a single 6 1/2 digit voltmeter to low single digit ppm error after bootstrapping."
Your problem is indeed the things that you know for sure and are wrong.
http://www.atmel.com/images/doc8003.pdf
Kevin O'Neill had a fine example of how this works
"As a metrologist, I'm surprised anyone would use metrology as an argument against averaging. One must take a series of readings and average if only to know the short-term repeatability to calculate uncertainties. And of course anyone with half a brain, metrologist or not, quickly understands that averaging adds precision.
Perhaps the mental stumbling block is that averaging readings from one device adds precision - not accuracy, but averaging multiple devices adds both precision and accuracy.
I once performed a simple experiment where I showed co-workers that I could get more accurate results from twenty-five 6 1/2 digit voltmeters than from one 8 1/2 digit voltmeter - even though the 8 1/2 digit voltmeter has a presumed accuracy 50 times better than the 6 1/2 digit voltmeters. I did 'cheat' a little by using statistical bootstrapping to increase the effective sample size from 25 to 1000. I would have to go back and find the final results, but the reduction in error was approximately from 85 ppm for a single 6 1/2 digit voltmeter to low single digit ppm error after bootstrapping."
Your problem is indeed the things that you know for sure and are wrong.
Michael MacCracken said...
Regarding Pat Michaels' charge against Tom Karl, Pat made up a test for the models suggesting that to be useful they had to be able to predict the running 5-year average variability through the 20th century; he found that they did not have any skill at doing this so coined the clever phrase that climate models are no more than random number generators. Given the test he chose which has nothing really to do with climate (defined by NOAA as a 30-year average), the models did exactly as expected in that the 5-year variability is dominated by ENSO (with a bit of volcanic response thrown in) and these are not predictable influences. For climate change, per the detection-attribution analyses that are done, one wants to use the slow but accumulating forcing of GHGs and other long-term forcing and look at the multi-decade response. Those of us involved in the meteorological aspects of the National Assessment wrote a peer-reviewed BAMS article to explain all of this (MacCracken, M. C., E. Barron, D. Easterling, B. Felzer, and T. Karl, 2003: Climate change scenarios for the U. S. National Assessment, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 1711-1723). That Pat still fails to understand this is pretty pathetic. Tom Karl has done a very commendable job and deserves our gratitude. Mike MacCracken
Bernard J. said...
Opit opined:
"I have yet to be convinced there is such a thing as a meaningful global mean temperature to be ascertained from land surface readings of some precision only in the last few decades."
Others have already smacked you about for your lack of understanding of metrology and statistical accuracy (due to random measurement variation), but there's another point that bears emphasising, and that is that where there are consistent systematic biases in measurement, these biases have little to no effect in monitoring changes to the dependent variable in a time series.
If one's boat is sinking and one is measuring the depth of the water to the top of one's seat rather than to the gunwale, one will have a bias in the estimation of the depth of the encroaching water. One is still able, though, to accurately monitor the fact that the depth of water in one's boat is increasing, and that one's boat is therefore sinking.
It's time for you to stop pissing in humanity's boat from your rock of ignorance, and start helping with the bailing out.
"I have yet to be convinced there is such a thing as a meaningful global mean temperature to be ascertained from land surface readings of some precision only in the last few decades."
Others have already smacked you about for your lack of understanding of metrology and statistical accuracy (due to random measurement variation), but there's another point that bears emphasising, and that is that where there are consistent systematic biases in measurement, these biases have little to no effect in monitoring changes to the dependent variable in a time series.
If one's boat is sinking and one is measuring the depth of the water to the top of one's seat rather than to the gunwale, one will have a bias in the estimation of the depth of the encroaching water. One is still able, though, to accurately monitor the fact that the depth of water in one's boat is increasing, and that one's boat is therefore sinking.
It's time for you to stop pissing in humanity's boat from your rock of ignorance, and start helping with the bailing out.
opit said...
Whoa ! My ignorance of meteorology is what is causing me to misunderstand that averaging of ignorance adds accuracy ? Wherefore this then ? https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120507/television-meteorologists-climate-change-skeptics-weather-global-warming-john-coleman-james-span-joseph-daleo Now if you wanted to say bias was reduced I would get that. But we are now talking data nebulous as quarks used to posit the dangers of further change when it is questionable that we have even reached the baseline accuracy* of single entry readings.
Should have said baseline variation for clarity, I suppose. Sure is fun getting feedback that does nothing more than denigrate my lack of understanding while failing still to show any testability of their thesis.
Related articles
China Food Inflation Looms As Ag Output Set To Plunge Most in 50 Years Amid Historic 'La Nina'(davidstockmanscontracorner.com)
Posts
