Jump to content

A question I have for believers in global warming


Recommended Posts

 

If I take a school and for each pupil compute the "mark anomaly" as the difference between the last month's average of his test marks and the average of such marks over, say, his entire schooling career, then average the anomalies for each classroom, then over each class, then over the entire school, what does the resulting figure, a "school-wide average mark anomaly" if you will, actually tell me? What does it mean, exactly? If it goes up, or if I calculate a moving average of arbitrary period of the time series of this quantity and find a positive "trend" in the data, does it mean the school is doing "better"? Does it mean individual students are "improving"? In what sense? What if a handful of students massively improved and others performed worse, so  the average went up but so did the dispersion along with it? Have the school's students really "improved"? What's happened to moments about the mean? Have I actually produced something physically meaningful with this simplistic statistical construct or have I in fact obscured actual information?

 

So then, returning to the issue of global warming and bearing in mind that an "average temperature" isn't itself a temperature or even really a physical quantity of the state of a physical system at some particular time, I have a question for you:

 

What exactly is the physical meaning of the points in a time series of a global spatial average of regional spatial averages and so on of the difference between a shorter term and longer term time average of local temperature readings, in other words of the "global average temperature anomaly", in what sense of "warming" does a positive change in this quantity indicate "warming", and by what justification does it serve as a proxy for "climate" so that a "trend" produced by placing a moving average of arbitrary period on the data can be interpreted as a singular 200-year-long phenomenon of "climate change"? You see, I find this all a bit befuddling. I realise if you have an ongoing net positive transfer of heat to a body you would see an increase in such a "global average temperature anomaly" because of the way its constructed, but I just don't see how the converse is necessarily true for a body that's not in thermal equilibrium or what this construct is supposed to represent beyond the method of its construction. Is "warming" here simply defined as an increase in the "global average temperature anomaly" or does it have a more tangible sense which is implied by such an increase?

 

Just curious.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read it, need to digest this idea with a nap...  The place of where to also forget about problems too= bed! ... (I've written a draft response already thoooouuugh, doesn't solve much I guess... Because we have to weigh up what is the best approach to a problem sometimes first - sensible first approach and all that) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should say upfront that I think it's fairly obvious, at least obvious to someone with the  requisite mathematical, scientific and philosophical training, that this quantity is more of a political tool and reductionistic farce than a meaningful or useful scientific concept (for instance, can this quantity be plugged into any local model of actual and specific physical phenomena with any predictive power and power beyond that of real local temperature data that it assimilates and obfuscates?). To make sense of this varied and complex system and any systematic changes occurring in, I'd think it makes more sense to look at localities and classify and aggregate to create a multi-dimensional picture, but this doesn't reduce reality down to a single and simplistic concept that can be waved in front of people's faces and sold to the public while leveraging loaded words like "warming" through a hidden fallacy of equivocation. The last question is really rhetorical, because this quantity logically implies nothing about "warming" unless changes in it are the definition of "warming", in other words, if we say we know the Earth is getting "warmer" because the global average temperature anomaly is increasing, the statement is only true if "warming" means precisely that. Increases in the "global average temperature anomaly" have become the operational definition of "global warming". And then the question arises of what the physical meaning of this multi-layered construct from the data is.

 

Human beings have a pretty good idea of what it means for, say, the Congo to be "warmer" than Antarctica, or less obviously but still tangibly Spain being "warmer" than Sweden, even though it's  not always true that any specific temperature reading in the former region is always higher than a simultaneous one in the latter; but reality is more complex than a simple number, and it's not necessarily true that this sense will always correspond with a higher "average temperature" (think data series with different variance but the same mean, or a constantly warm climate versus one that has more extreme summers and winters but both have the same average temperature), much less that a fractional increase in a temperature anomaly will be read as warming in this sense (and less still such anomalies averaged over regions across the world in an attempt to say something meaningful about the world!). The problem with a systems like Earth's is that there is not only nothing resembling a global equilibirum, or that even regions continually vary in themselves, but that even the temperatures at a specific spot can vary greatly by time of year and time of day. Again, I am simply not sold that a tiny change in this construct has any tangible meaning beyond itself. That it's linked to "climate change" and from there as the measure of the cause of sea level changes, weather events and natural disasters is simply dumbfounding.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MIND BLOWN may I say ever so slightly! 🤔👨‍🎓🤪... But not in a bad way!... Not at all. 🥸🧠💥

 

🙆🏽‍♂️==============🤌

((Head struggle *full alert*)) . Replaced with momentary gesture, in turn attoned by another gesture until brain fades away... 😁

 

Hold there please, let me catchup, busy man here currently...  But I am interested. So busy right now I have only read half your second post... 

 

You have high intelligence,  I like it! 👍.. But about my draft reply from early hours, my phone did its random restart and I lost what was in my clipboard... 

 

Anyway, catch ya soon (ish) ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have now read your full second post...  Impressive words and narrative... 

 

However... My talk will appear somewhat another shade in among the shades that already pervade... (shades=opinion variations) 

 

I'm dematerializing for now as my brain is not functioning the way I want,  apart from to air the following... Orrr Unless my einstein alterego wants a shot in the early hours as I modestly attempted °last night° (=only then really just wanting to know had I understood enough of you mind you, so perhaps you haven't missed much there other than something to perhaps mirror what you have said as far as any[ones] understanding credible of the words on offer may,,, offer... ) 

 

But coz I lost that draft I spoke about and my brain not functioning too as its needed elsewhere in life...

 

Well...Here nonetheless is one serious question, not to give you bad vibes or prejudgement here but I ask are you coming out with alchemy of sorts essentially as one of the people that says climate ITSELF is a farce OR are the formula or models for certain ways of achieving that a farce?  I just mean in the latter for when things don't stand up to whatever test being used to evaluate, and used by some PTB knowingly sonas to cuase derision on climate change whilst simultaneously appearing to support it etc!!??

Well of the latter thats the snide politicians and psychopathic legions of the worlds coercive drive to perversely use power... And most of us will know that as a staple of a slimey nefarious and egregious government.

 

........So at some point lets rather consider your plan OP of understanding the checks and balances of the earth OP fLor something along those lines.

🙂 

...  and when heralded as good test models any place, anywhere, even when believed satisfactory or reliable, regarding any GENUINE TESTING OR TRULY BELIEVABLE FACTUAL RESILUTIONS... are findings going to be sufficient and not just latent facts, able to combat (politics aside) whatever thing thwarting emergency... Are Facts of revelant focus just as much thwarted by "climate conspiracy misdirection" equally galling than political con artists and fraudsters, as more the problem than to suggest science lacks the right imperatives?...  although science as pure/independent science is welcome...  (like facts relating to dyanmic substantiation if ever thats a go, whereto maybe some crystalization of veritable facts is not too crazy to get hold of.. Yet even then will the facts supposing legible, hold the sort of information true to planetary patterns???  Is that the main concern?    

 

 

Now lets if we must guide ourselves over to this, which iiiiiffff any planet saviour, or your average eco hero has any fair chance at tweaking the unfairly popular narrative of negative nay sayers on this forum, then here are some more strike a nerve words. ....

 (even when I hate talking about climate change deniers) 

 

So I mean - - - let me quickly turn a bright as brass spotlight on reflecting odiousness on behalf of those doubting climate change sceptics as if not even butter would melt their theories... (*which irks

me something rotten when we have emergencies before our very eyes*)...

 

The opinions of people devaluing climate change legitimacy are serving no purpose much... They may find semi believable facts of some description, and sure especially to do with those that hijack climate change to their GREEDY ADVANTAGE...These twisted individuals (power ignobles) must sadly be folks with something to gain short term ONLY contrary to their deluded futuristic fortelling is actually a non-livable non-viability NOT EVEN LIVABLE BY THE RICH IN POST APOCALYPSE....

 

So we ~HUMANS~ need to keep it real for the sakes of a non-robotized system of natural order... TO TAKE CARE OF THE PLANET. 

 

Now whether these greedy provocateurs of the wealthy or not so high flying (*MEGA PUN*), be they in moderate to powerful positions its the same taking advantage, but as well as that I might indeed consider are conspiracists of the alluded bunch on these forums too, culpable sometimes too in betraying the very planet we live on and depend on... Who are they on board with and for what??? What good is all the scrutiny of stuff culminating in, if not for the good of the planet??? or are we just prepossessed for bad decisions by leaving our senses so we are just left with dissonance and disarray???...

 

Howbout somebody show the doubters responsible for misdirection of blighting the urgency - instead howbout show to all anything reflecting "the happenings" of what are THE RESULT of things from root causes but are things (=even if acknowledged today)  which have already bolted out of the stable making the earth unstable, of mankinds disaster catalogue of apocalyptically credible wrongs which wrong foot nature in big ways. 

 

What I'm saying is since dim views of climate change are most prevalent on this forum, they must have simply not been in harms way of it or whatever leads them to be apathetically discredulous mortals, or would rather be seen  smarting like they are on a cat walk in the wake of some plight of clear and present danger than dealing with the real issues in hand is my impression by and large here... (*not a pop at you OP*) BUT see all it takes is something like chem trails, and it's... oh climate change is fake, perhaps concluded from that only (for exanple) by what I can determine... Don't get me wrong, Chem Trails are a field growing expertise so we are told, and making that ripe for manipulation of the weather, should be concerning in big ways no doubt but that should not act as the only source of climate threat by demonic powers or simply the equally sizable. problem of too many people all rmindlessly ravaging the planet for simple minded short sighted gain and vanity of untenable and unsustainable power acquisition as the backdrop to catastrophe... Yeah, good luck with that to whom that applies.   

 

 

Some deniers may focus all one thing like that to justify avoiding other climate warnings and dangers where nature clearly demonstrates and reminds us nature is Boss and mankinds suicidal denial of the issues or perverted oversights by playing God meanwhile is puerile concept of trying to "own weather" by seeding clouds, or by tampering whole seasons of weather eventually etc... Which I'm not saying isn't a real practice. 

 

Meanwhile back on apocalypse planet earth where nature is firing on all cylinders just to keep alive we meanwhile some lot of people as i've been broadly mentioning trying to think clearly whilst seemingly having cocaine up their nose, on the subject, who may need more than just smelling salts to bring back their common sense, and even if they are intellectually bright... even if they truly are believed to have cut a cloth part cognicent & fitting to the whole climate change complex tapestry.. 

 

Enyway... I don't wanna turn this thread into a climate change "deniers"!  party for my money (sts) but lots of people on this website seem to me so entrenched in climate politicalness, or for instance polarization of earths magnetic fields switching ploarity etc, AND concepts as real as they maybe, don't exactly encourage action for NOW ISSUES... 

Instead...  the real causes WE SEE

HURTLING TOWARDS US get smoke screened like gas would not ignite if you held a match up. 🙄

 

How much more dramatic than a super hurricane or like a tsunami do people want, catastrophes in some peoples eyes seem to completely evade them. 

 

Yeah,  earthquakes,  volcanoes,  tsunamis,  are all natural, even polar switch of magnetic north and south can happen arguably naturally too I guess.. but so much more is not not not... And IS ONLY the fault of mankind.  

 

 

Yeah I've side stepped analyzing models, numbers and systems of pattern interpretation... Not in the mood just now, sorry. 

Not really laziness, just stuff on my mind where distraction is to be avoided presently in my situation of personal crisis...

 

but sure... I am glad I noticed your thread enyway... 

 

Excuse my rant, but it needed to be given a slice of frank speaking as I just roundedly and critically mindfully did... But not so mindful we forget we are all in quick sand... 

Edited by TetraG
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...