3 ms·

That's not what climate is about. Also, it depends on location, in many places it was colder in 2019 than in 2018. If you're talking about some calculated "glob

That's not what climate is about. Also, it depends on location, in many places it was colder in 2019 than in 2018. If you're talking about some calculated "global" temperature, it doesn't exist in a valid form.

bannable 7y ago
Are you claiming that it is not possible to find a trend in a mean temperature of a great many points across the globe, over a long period of time? What makes such a measurement an "invalid form"?
- lazyjones 7y ago
  It is not possible if there aren't valid temperature measurements available for all points throughout the measured period of time, so that many temperatures are "interpolated", estimated etc.
  - bannable 7y ago
    Except that we do have a massive number of recorded temperatures across a massive number of locations in the last 100 years. Climate models, some dating back to the 1970s, have correctly predicted global temperature changes in the 50 years since based on this data. The measurements are real, and there is an established history of the models being generally correct (if not in specific details) by now. Climate study is not the new science you seem to think it is.
    - lazyjones 7y ago
      > Climate models, some dating back to the 1970s, have correctly predicted global temperature changes in the 50 years since based on this data. Can you point me to one such model? One that actually predicted temperatures correctly back in the 1970s and not after various recent "adaptations" like "corrected" emission data? > The measurements are real Yes, measurements are real. Interpolations, resulting "global" temperatures and predictions aren't.
jknoepfler 7y ago
you can, in fact, compute a mean temperature for the globe. and you can, in fact, plot a trend line over that mean. and that mean is, in fact, meaningful.
jknoepfler 7y ago
On a crude first pass, I will accept any combination of the following datasets, assuming they are updated in 2020 and 2021: HadCRUT4 (from UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit) GISTEMP from the NASA GISS MLOST from the NOAA JMA from the Japan Meteorological Agency I'm open to other datasets. I'm not choosy.
- lazyjones 7y ago
  So, you would have lost the bet in 2016 and 2017. Did climate get colder?
  - jknoepfler 7y ago
    no, a noisy measure around a globally increasing trend line went down. I believe that the noisy measure goes up, on average, because it is (noisily) measuring a warming climate. I'll make that bet every year, and I will come out ahead... using the trend line, you could set odds at which the betting on a colder 2021 would be the correct bet - but it isn't 50/50, which it would be if the process were random noise. as a professional poker player I'm not surprised by this argument, but I am saddened. edit: do you actually not understand the basics of statistical inference? this is like, middle-level high school math.
    - lazyjones 7y ago
      > * I'll make that bet every year, and I will come out ahead...* Good luck with that, but you first asked about one year (next year), which is a different matter altogether. > (edit: do you actually not understand the basics of statistical inference? this is like, middle-level high school math. I completely understand your point and how you are trying to move the goalpost from an easily refutable argument to something more useful. Perhaps your "professional poker player" mind doesn't understand that recent increases/decreases in temperature averages affect next year's weather, whereas past poker games don't affect your current one.

bannable 7y ago

Are you claiming that it is not possible to find a trend in a mean temperature of a great many points across the globe, over a long period of time? What makes such a measurement an "invalid form"?

lazyjones 7y ago
It is not possible if there aren't valid temperature measurements available for all points throughout the measured period of time, so that many temperatures are "interpolated", estimated etc.
- bannable 7y ago
  Except that we do have a massive number of recorded temperatures across a massive number of locations in the last 100 years. Climate models, some dating back to the 1970s, have correctly predicted global temperature changes in the 50 years since based on this data. The measurements are real, and there is an established history of the models being generally correct (if not in specific details) by now. Climate study is not the new science you seem to think it is.
  - lazyjones 7y ago
    > Climate models, some dating back to the 1970s, have correctly predicted global temperature changes in the 50 years since based on this data. Can you point me to one such model? One that actually predicted temperatures correctly back in the 1970s and not after various recent "adaptations" like "corrected" emission data? > The measurements are real Yes, measurements are real. Interpolations, resulting "global" temperatures and predictions aren't.

jknoepfler 7y ago

you can, in fact, compute a mean temperature for the globe. and you can, in fact, plot a trend line over that mean. and that mean is, in fact, meaningful.

jknoepfler 7y ago

On a crude first pass, I will accept any combination of the following datasets, assuming they are updated in 2020 and 2021: HadCRUT4 (from UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit) GISTEMP from the NASA GISS MLOST from the NOAA JMA from the Japan Meteorological Agency I'm open to other datasets. I'm not choosy.

lazyjones 7y ago
So, you would have lost the bet in 2016 and 2017. Did climate get colder?
- jknoepfler 7y ago
  no, a noisy measure around a globally increasing trend line went down. I believe that the noisy measure goes up, on average, because it is (noisily) measuring a warming climate. I'll make that bet every year, and I will come out ahead... using the trend line, you could set odds at which the betting on a colder 2021 would be the correct bet - but it isn't 50/50, which it would be if the process were random noise. as a professional poker player I'm not surprised by this argument, but I am saddened. edit: do you actually not understand the basics of statistical inference? this is like, middle-level high school math.
  - lazyjones 7y ago
    > * I'll make that bet every year, and I will come out ahead...* Good luck with that, but you first asked about one year (next year), which is a different matter altogether. > (edit: do you actually not understand the basics of statistical inference? this is like, middle-level high school math. I completely understand your point and how you are trying to move the goalpost from an easily refutable argument to something more useful. Perhaps your "professional poker player" mind doesn't understand that recent increases/decreases in temperature averages affect next year's weather, whereas past poker games don't affect your current one.