Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #710975

Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/1/2018 2:26 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 1:23:43 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
>> On 10/31/2018 12:08 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 12:43:30 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
>>>>        I want to see the raw evidence, the data,
>>>> there are huge holes in the data, averaging upon averaging, inadequate
>>>> computer models parameters adjusted for a result, ignoring much of the
>>>> effects of the largest greenouse gas-water vapor, and ignoring much of
>>>> the other greenhouse gasses, direct political interference, direct
>>>> political redirection, many hollywood movies to brainwash the public
>>>> without refering to the raw data, and a huge industry selling fear has
>>>> resulted for unemployed journalists.
>>>>
>>>> the analysis of the raw data is deeply flawed, take one point for every
>>>> square mile on the earths surface, and take the daily average of that
>>>> point for the past 500,000 years. Do we have that data set ? NO !
>>>> so what do we have ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I want to see an error analysis.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe we can research this together.
>>> here is one resource:
>>> https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
>>>
>>> (though some here might call MIT too liberal.)
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>
>> very active subjects, which means it is still being researched, most
>> have stepped ahead of what raw surface data can support and then paywall.
> 
> By that criteria ("active subject" and "still being researched")
> would you consider quantum mechanics, relativity, or Big bang theories
> to be unsupported?
> Just trying to get the ground rules set.
> 
> 
>>
>> need an answer to this question;
>>
>> where is Sattilite measurement of surface temperature error analysis,
>> from 1985 to present.
>>
>> I believe they measure in 2 or 3 IR bands, which have been manualy
>> corrolated to temperature readings on the surface (someone measured
>> serface temperature to help calibrate the satellites) However, water
>> vapor can obscure the IR in these bands, so the surface was not being
>> directly measured.
>>
>>   AN error analysis is analysis of all sources of possable error for the
>> measurments and estimates  the distribution of error.
>>
> 
> On that MIT site I searched with: surface temperature error analysis
> Got 207 results including this one:
> https://globalchange.mit.edu/sites/default/files/MITJPSPGC_Reprint_15-27_0.pdf

good stuff, Note it is Volume 28, 28 volumes, a lot of stuff to wade
through.

but on that page page 8,328 or so figure 1 is a nice diagram that
illustrates the process people are trying to bound.  But to get to this,
they had to make a huge number of assumptions, which should be reflected
in the uncertianty of the number, notice -184 +-9  LW cooling for +_ 5%.
But 5% accuracy is nominal in measuring instruments, 3% in better
instruments. 1% is quite difficult to get to.
So how can an entire planet, with its natural processes, clouds, layers,
 be measured accuractly, and over time, to not very more than +_5% ?

I traced some of this back to how temerature were used to get high
accuracy, and what they used was daily average temperatures, so the
temperature extremes were washed out. the varance was not brought
forward. Then they average the daily average temperatures again and
spread out that number over a larger area, so more variance is wash out.
So you can arrive at a precision number 59.04 degrees F, which you think
represents a yearly average over the state of Maine, however that number
is swollowed up by the large varances, that were 'averaged out', so in
Maine it is difficult for one to measure 59.04 at any time, any place,
it is usally some other number.

for example,  say the input is 5 to 105  and has an even probability of
the range between the two, the average is 55.00 , but the measured will
almost never be 55.00.

The point is that many processes with large variances cannot be
accurately described using typical mathematics (remember the book "Black
Swan" by Taleb?), the variances of the underlying data need to be
included in the calculations, and brought forth.

in that paper you linked to, they have errors in their data, (in the
error bounds) one is in Table 3, incomeing solar F at 340.2 +_ 0.1  or
0.029 %   another paper states it is 1370 W/m^2 +- 3.4% due to
eccentricity of Earths orbit. (you can ignore units conversion)

How can the sun radiation only vary by 0.029% ?  How can we measure that
accuractly ?  What bands, what filters, what detectors were used, and
how were they calibrated ?    My point is the extreme presision they
arrive at is an artifact of averaging.

From that paper: page 8332, second paragraph
"This is achieved by invoking two common (and nec-
essary) assumptions concerning the uncertainties in the
component fluxes: that they are random and Gaussian.
While it is difficult to justify either of these assumptions,
they are required in the absence of definitive bias or error
distribution information."

    which means they punted, and just assumed Gaussian random
distrubutions, because the computers are already setup for that canned
function.  (it is not "necessary" as they state)

     they made the already averaged data fit their math tools, throwing
out variance and real distributions.


page 8332 has other statements on it that should raise concern;

"A larger value of  ki^2 is indicative of larger
than anticipated biases in one or more of the component
fluxes. Another simple (but valuable) metric of the
success of the optimization is a direct comparison of the
magnitudes of the adjustments made to each component
flux against their estimated uncertainties. Energy budget
residuals, computed as the sum of the adjustments to the
component fluxes, that exceed associated error bounds
are indicative of areas where balance could not be ad-
equately achieved."

"One of the principal advantages of this approach lies
in the fact that it can be scaled to arbitrarily complex
problems involving any number of fluxes and con-
straints. In particular, it can be used to establish an ex-
plicit link between the energy budget and water cycle
through the connection between latent heating, evapo-
ration, and precipitation. In this way, disparate obser-
vational datasets that are seldom considered together,
such as radiative fluxes and surface runoff, can be cou-
pled to their mutual benefit through their relationships
to precipitation and evaporation in energy and water
budget closure equations. "








following is a news article that highlights part of the problem, (it
misses the fact that daily temperature varance were washed out).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/01/uncertainty-ranges-error-bars-and-cis/

one can draw many lines through and be within all the error bars, and
they are viable answers too.



.................





> 
> which has some of the information you might find interesting (free PDF copy)
> 
>>
>> I have an Error analysis for GPS done by the Canadian Government, it is
>> about 900 pages.
>>
>> I question sattilite here, as that is more consistant and known than
>> surface(air) field measurments, which are loaded with more error sources.
> 
> I did not see anything specifically analyzing satellite measurements.
> I'll keep looking.
>   Ed
> 

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Why India needs to worry about climate change kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-29 10:24 -0400
  Why India needs to worry about climate change sam.wormley@gmail.com - 2018-10-29 13:40 -0700
    Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-29 14:03 -0700
      Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-29 16:23 -0500
        Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 08:11 -0700
  Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 15:27 -0700
    Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-29 15:54 -0700
      Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-30 00:46 -0500
        Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 13:11 -0400
  Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-10-30 00:03 -0400
    Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-30 00:47 -0500
      Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 13:13 -0400
        Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-30 13:01 -0500
          Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-30 13:55 -0500
            Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 18:19 -0400
            Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-10-31 03:29 +0000
              Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-31 11:26 -0500
          Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-11-01 01:02 -0400
    Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 08:41 -0700
      Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-10-30 23:13 -0400
        Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 09:17 -0700
          Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 12:38 -0400
            Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 10:00 -0700
              Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-31 14:08 -0500
                Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 12:38 -0700
                Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-01 16:40 -0500
              Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 17:57 -0400
          Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-31 11:43 -0500
            Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 10:08 -0700
              Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-31 12:23 -0500
                Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 12:26 -0700
                Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-01 23:35 -0500
              Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 18:06 -0400
                Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 12:45 -0700
          Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-01 00:41 -0400
            Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 12:58 -0700
              Re: Why India needs to worry about climate change Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-01 23:02 -0400

csiph-web