On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:16:44 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatrick@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On Jul 28, 4:55 pm, abelard <abela...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:03:14 -0700 (PDT), malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
>
>(abelard): "there is no such thing as one 'valid test' for 'mean
>global
>temperature' ".
> (malcolm): "If you mean that there is currently no valid instrument,
>we agree."
>(abe lard): "you are confusing 'valid' with 'agreed'....and nothing is
>ever going to satisfy moonbats or the filthy fossil fuel industry..."
>
>Dunno 'bout "confusing". "Valid" means, roughly, strongly correlated
>with other, accepted (i.e., agreed-upon) measures.
so exactly what are you going to use as a comparison to
validate a global temperature?
>> >"Mean" describes some measurement(s). If there's a purpose, like to
>> >answer the question if the world is getting warmer, then lots of
>> >instruments provide useful measurements. The problems originate in
>> >several issues: 1) inadequate sampling, 2) inconsistent comparisons
>> >(add new stations) 3) changed conditions around instruments
>> >(urbanization).
>>
>> and thus it is sought to apply corrections...
>> thus do people seek standards processes....
>> thus are surrogates used and suggested....
>
>Right.
>
>(malcolm): "Taking the entire Earth's temperature from a remote
>location in space would provide a valid measure,"
>(abelard): "how do you hope to get a single useful measure for
>that...do you intend to take both sides of the planet at once...
>
>Whatever. Just so long as measures occurred at the same time of day,
>at regular intervals (i.e., solstices, equinoxes). I don't suppose the
>instrument would work well when the Earth is in transit across the sun
>(i.e., at night).
>
>(abelard): "do you hope to get a useful figure for 1891 and may
>1956 ...do you hope to get land temperatures after deforestation or
>heavy snow...
>
>"Land temperatures" ? It's a whole Earth measure. Snow? Worldwide?
>Don't be silly. If that happens (snow at sea level on the equator, or
>in Death Valley in July), we won't need remote sensing to establish
>global warming (but we'll still be in doubt about the cause).
so choose something...anything...
there is no merit in keep claiming anything that is chosen doesn't
suit you...
repeat...nothing will ever satisfy moonbats and the filthy
fossil fuel industry
>> >but it hasn't yet been done and there is no baseline.
>
>> again, 'a baseline' is a matter of agreement
>
>Not at all. Measurements with this new instrument start when it goes
>into operation. Correlation with other measures would establish their
>validity as measures of whole Earth temperature.
not until you agree to use one particular series or another
as your criterion for 'validity'(validation)
and that is hardly 'validation'...it is more (in statistical
terminology)...'repeatability'
of course you could try validation against ghgs....
but that will just leave you seeking another exit plan....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 do***ent calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
