Say Anything Blog

Actually, there is a technical question regarding the interpretation of an average of a phenomena that has long-term correlations in the year-to-year fluctuations.

Normally, when we do statistics, we assume that year-to-year variability is uncorrelated, and further than these fluctuations are normally distributed. Both of these are violated in global climatology, there are long-term variabilities that are highly correlated, and the fluctuation distribution is closer to log-normal than normal.

So to rephrase your question, “average global temperature” has a strained interpretation in any case.

To the point your author made, it’s not global mean temperature that is even an issue, rather it’s the temperature in the arctic region that matters.  After all, a +1 C yearly increase in temperature,compared to naturally fluctuations, wouldn’t even be noticed.

Of course, thats the joke about global warming enthusiasts looking at year-to-year climate variations as evidence for a long-term 0.2C/decade temperature increase.  Frankly, it’s completely ignorant.

To the point your author made, it’s not global mean temperature that is even an issue, rather it’s the temperature in the arctic region that matters.

Even though I’m not a scientist, that makes total sense to me, but the globalwarmingists make a big deal out of “global mean temperature”, and this article makes an important point in debate with those people.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

but the globalwarmingists make a big deal out of “global mean temperature”, and this article makes an important point in debate with those people.

The politicians and the MSM make a big deal out of global mean temperature, the scientists just break it down to something simple that the politicians can understand. They (politicians) are just not all that bright see?

The scientists generally use temperature changes for the local areas, and using extensive calculations worked out a global mean for the layman’s benefit, so he didn’t have to read through reams of data every time global temperature was referenced.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

So what?  It seems that the construct “global mean temperature” is meaningless, and no amount of rationalization and justification will change that.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

I didn’t dispute that, I just said it made it easier for more simple-minded people to understand the science. Climatologists also understand it’s uselessness in climate modelling. No amount of rationalisation and justification of the evidence against man-made global warming will change the fact that global warming exists.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

I didn’t dispute that, I just said it made it easier for more simple-minded people to understand the science.

How patronizing!

No amount of rationalisation and justification of the evidence against man-made global warming will change the fact that global warming exists.

Very interesting; without “global mean temperature” as a meaningful measure, how do you arrive at that conclusion?  Besides, the real issue here is “human-caused” global warming.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

Do you dispute then that the proles like to be ignorant of the world, and generally only respond to soundbites and shock tactics?
The meaningful measures are made by climate scientists, who as I’ve said, make the data more understandable by the layman. It would be wrong for them to take one temperature change from one location and use that to illustrate their theories, so they use an average of all temperature changes. Yes, it is meaningless and they know it.
The real issue, is as I see it, (not necessarily man-made) global warming. The constant bickering about whether we did it or not, just delays us taking action to prepare for it.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

It’s like pantomime!

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Do you dispute then that the proles like to be ignorant of the world, and generally only respond to soundbites and shock tactics?

Once again, how patronizing!  I don’t refer to my fellow citizens as “proles”; that’s leftiespeak.  It’s from Marx, who referred to the citizenry as “the proletariat”, and who thought it was perfectly OK to be their dictator(for their own good, of course).
It’s a bit like hipsters referring to regular people as “squares”, and homosexuals referring to married couples with children as “breeders”.  It’s snotty and dismissive, and I don’t subscribe to it.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.

With all due respect, MOFAL, global mean temperature is one of the proxies that is used to discuss global warming.  You’re simply wrong that the reason they do this is to make it easier for “simple minds” to understand it.

In fact, when people point to evidence like Greenland being as warm or warmer 400 years ago, one of the first retorts is .. it isn’t the temperature in Greenland that matters, it’s the global temperature.

That, as I pointed out, is an erroneous argument.

In fact, I took the word from the thesaurus. It just means “the lower and working classes” and that was all I intended with it. If you want to see Marxism in my comments, it is entirely up to you. I don’t subscribe to that kind of thinking either.
Back to the question, do you dispute that the average Joe likes to be ignorant of the world and its politics and generally only responds to soundbites and shock tactics?

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Carrick, Do you agree that when talking about global warming it would be far easier to talk about one mean change than each individual locale, one at a time, because that seems to be the only alternative. The only way to discuss it is to break it down to something that people will have the patience to listen to. This, unfortunately is averages.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Back to the question, do you dispute that the average Joe likes to be ignorant of the world and its politics and generally only responds to soundbites and shock tactics?

I think the citizens of any country deserve to be told the truth by their govt and news media, so yes, I dispute your opinion of “the average Joe”, or “the proles”.  You do see the correspondence between “proles” and “proletariat”, don’t you?  BTW, I think “proles” was first used in the book “1984”.  It was used in the way I described.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.