Well, that’s abject nonsense. Either water is made of two hydrogen and one oxygen or it isn’t. Either the repulsion between the electrons in two gallons of water is 4.1*1026 newtons or it isn’t. Either an orange isn’t the summation of its physical properties or it isn’t.
Is or is not a reading of 56 degrees at a given time a constant? Honestly.
Already proved otherwise.
Stop with the lies, please.
Since Tim Cook’s statements are predicated on fraud, why would you support them with the fraud uncovered? What sane person does that?
That’s not how it works.
Good for them. And that somehow magically changes the truth?
I’m an environmentalist. I support Apple’s actions to preserve the environment. I am vehemently against Apple perpetrating the lie of AGW.
Appeal to popularity, authority, success; take your pick.
Explain why a company should be supported if it doesn’t care about objective truth.
How about that… making a profit off what is claimed to be a majority opinion… You don’t think that… NAH, of COURSE that can’t POSSIBLY be happening with the AGW lunatics!
Read the title. The actual topic is AGW. There is no AGW. If Tim doubled down on Apple’s environmentalism, that’s one thing. This is explicitly calling out AGW.
[SIZE=20px]BECAUSE IT’S THE TRUTH. I DON’T CARE HOW MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE IT. THAT DOESN’T CHANGE WHETHER OR NOT IT’S TRUE. I DON[/SIZE][SIZE=20px]’T CARE HOW PROFITABLE A LIE IS–AND NO, APPLE’S SUCCESS HAS NOT THUS FAR BEEN PREDICATED ON SUPPORTING THIS LIE.[/SIZE]
Citation fucking needed. :???:
Tell the site owners to stop letting the article robot post politicized garbage outside of PoliticalOutsider, then. I hate that, myself.
Are you asking how Apple could champion a campaign against the lie of AGW, or how Apple should continue its environmentalist campaign? Thus far I’ve been quite happy with what they’ve already been doing on the environmental side of things. This new statement is a CHANGE for Apple.
Why would Apple say anything against a popular movement that is making them money hand over fist and not look like heroes leading other corporations down the same path if they have the ultimate out later when Tallest Skil stands at the podium of the White House next to Ben Carson giving us a speech about how NASA has defrauded all of us and Ben Carson announces he's defunding NASA. All Apple has to say is "Wow, we all got duped. I can't believe this." And the truth or not the truth has no impact.
Sorry - it doesn't matter what you boil it down to - temperature, by definition, is a state variable. Constants are properties that take only one value.
So objectivity is subjective; that’s what you’re going for here.
Originally Posted by latifbp
Why would Apple say anything against a popular movement that is making them money hand over fist…
1. I was unaware that Apple was already making money based on the lie of AGW.
2. BECAUSE IT’S NOT TRUE AND THEORETICALLY THEY’D HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO STICK TO THE TRUTH.
…Ben Carson…
Doesn’t have much of a clue about anything but neurosurgery.
And the truth or not the truth has no impact.
So, being presented with the truth, as you have been, you just don’t care about it. That’s the problem with your comprehension, then. No wonder we can’t see eye to eye.
Sorry - it doesn't matter what you boil it down to - temperature, by definition, is a state variable. Constants are properties that take only one value.
So objectivity is subjective; that’s what you’re going for here.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at - I'm not seeing the subjectivity that you are referring to.
subjective |s?b?jektiv| adjective1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions
So objectivity is subjective; that’s what you’re going for here.
1. I was unaware that Apple was already making money based on the lie of AGW.
2. BECAUSE IT’S NOT TRUE AND THEORETICALLY THEY’D HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO STICK TO THE TRUTH.
Doesn’t have much of a clue about anything but neurosurgery.
So, being presented with the truth, as you have been, you just don’t care about it. That’s the problem with your comprehension, then. No wonder we can’t see eye to eye.
So Apple should grandstand against NASA based on what you presented? That's what I'm hearing from you
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at - I'm not seeing the subjectivity that you are referring to.
I go take a temperature/sea/ice reading at a specific, given point in time. Literally the mathematical definition of a point, if you like–use a Planck second. I then get the data from that reading.
You say that the reading will magically change at a later point in time because something something averaging; something something tweaking; something something algorithms because we “found” some better way of doing it.
The implication with the number of stations in existence in any given area is that they’re already accounting for anything you might care to want accounted for. Inventing new reasons to alter the readings when all the physical evidence still says otherwise makes said reasons meaningless.
If there’s not enough coverage NOW to get an accurate reading in the first place–meaning that it will be changed at any arbitrary point in the future to any arbitrary temperature desired by the person changing it–then all the temperature readings we take NOW are irrelevant, not a reflection of the actual world, and CANNOT BE USED as evidence for ANY sort of claim about the climate. You see what I’m saying? The reading from Ol’ Doc Backwoods’ mercury thermometer in 1870 might not be the most accurate, but you’re telling me that our satellites are lying*? The satellites that NASA itself have said give more accurate temperature readings than land-based systems? What does that say about the lying land readings, then?
*Lying insofar as their data is so “wrong” as to be not worth retaining, as is the claim.
It doesn’t even matter what metric we’re using to define ‘modern recording methods’. Every single one still proves false the lies spewed by the AGW crowd. We’re not experiencing the hottest year on record using the timespan covered by the most modern possible recording technology. We’re not experiencing the hottest year on record using the timespan covered by the slightly less modern recording technology. We’re not experiencing the hottest year on record using the timespan covered by pre-modern recording technology. We’re not experiencing the hottest year on record using a timespan within written human history even including using NO recording technology. Beyond that the point is proven and also irrelevant for the discussion of AGW.
Originally Posted by latifbp
So Apple should grandstand against NASA based on what you presented? That's what I'm hearing from you
Apple should stand against anyone who’s wrong.
Should Apple give governments a backdoor to its software simply because most governments want it? Should Apple give its users’ personal information to advertisers because most advertisers want it? It doesn’t matter who or what institution they’re fighting against as long as they’re fighting for the truth.
I go take a temperature/sea/ice reading at a specific, given point in time. Literally the mathematical definition of a point, if you like–use a Planck second. I then get the data from that reading.
You say that the reading will magically change at a later point in time because something something averaging; something something tweaking; something something algorithms because we “found” some better way of doing it.
The implication with the number of stations in existence in any given area is that they’re already accounting for anything you might care to want accounted for. Inventing new reasons to alter the readings when all the physical evidence still says otherwise makes said reasons meaningless.
If there’s not enough coverage NOW to get an accurate reading in the first place–meaning that it will be changed at any arbitrary point in the future to any arbitrary temperature desired by the person changing it–then all the temperature readings we take NOW are irrelevant, not a reflection of the actual world, and CANNOT BE USED as evidence for ANY sort of claim about the climate. You see what I’m saying? The reading from Ol’ Doc Backwoods’ mercury thermometer in 1870 might not be the most accurate, but you’re telling me that our satellites are lying*? The satellites that NASA itself have said give more accurate temperature readings than land-based systems? What does that say about the lying land readings, then?
*Lying insofar as their data is so “wrong” as to be not worth retaining, as is the claim.
It doesn’t even matter what metric we’re using to define ‘modern recording methods’. Every single one still proves false the lies spewed by the AGW crowd. We’re not experiencing the hottest year on record using the timespan covered by the most modern possible recording technology. We’re not experiencing the hottest year on record using the timespan covered by the slightly less modern recording technology. We’re not experiencing the hottest year on record using the timespan covered by pre-modern recording technology. We’re not experiencing the hottest year on record using a timespan within written human history even including using NO recording technology. Beyond that the point is proven and also irrelevant for the discussion of AGW.
Apple should stand against anyone who’s wrong.
Should Apple give governments a backdoor to its software simply because most governments want it? Should Apple give its users’ personal information to advertisers because most advertisers want it? It doesn’t matter who or what institution they’re fighting against as long as they’re fighting for the truth.
Nope... As long as it satisfies their customers. Governments aren't their customers, the people who want to keep their data protected are. So they cater to their customers. I figure they've done enough research to know most of their customers care about climate change, and the ones that don't are negligible because either they don't care and will still buy Apple or if they do they still buy Apple (like you) so this is an effective policy of corporate responsibility. I thought that's what you meant when you tried to teach me how businesses work? So Tim Cook wins. He's the winner. They aren't going to compromise their brand for 'truth' that's not their responsibility, and if they go carbon neutral, please the environmentalists in China, get a stamp of approval from environmental overseers it makes people less weary about what potential damage producing millions of new iPhones every year does to the environment... So people hear carbon neutral and feel no guilt for buying the new iPhone every frickin' year. Geesh! I'm sure glad you don't run Apple, because you'd alienate so much of the market over this idea of 'truth.' Nobody gives a crap about truth anymore. As long as they have money and believe whatever truth they want to believe in is occurring everything is fine in their minds. The pursuit of truth died almost 100 years ago now.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at - I'm not seeing the subjectivity that you are referring to.
I go take a temperature/sea/ice reading at a specific, given point in time. Literally the mathematical definition of a point, if you like–use a Planck second. I then get the data from that reading.
Oh - I see. You were not using the terms constant and variable in their formal scientific meaning - you were just trying to say that once a data point is taken, its value is set. Different thing altogether, but yes - I agree with you - the raw data does not change after being taken. That's the meaning of the term "raw data".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You say that the reading will magically change at a later point in time because something something averaging; something something tweaking; something something algorithms because we “found” some better way of doing it.
The implication with the number of stations in existence in any given area is that they’re already accounting for anything you might care to want accounted for. Inventing new reasons to alter the readings when all the physical evidence still says otherwise makes said reasons meaningless.
I gave a quite detailed explanation of this in #197, but not clear enough, I guess. Let me try again.
For the purposes of obtaining global average temperatures, individual temperature data are averaged both spatially and temporally. Averaging increases both precision and that part of accuracy determined by random errors. It does not address systematic errors unless they are randomly distributed between datasets about an accurate mean.
Averaging temporally is easy enough in principle because, generally, temperature data are taken at regular intervals and so all that is necessary is to sum the data over the interval in question and divide by the number of data points in that interval.
Averaging spatially is a harder problem. Firstly, we do not have geographically equally distributed temperature sites. Just to illustrate, supposing that we just had 10 sites around the equator and one at each pole. Summing those temperatures and dividing by 12 would not give a reasonable global average - it would be weighted far too heavily at the equator. So average temperatures are computed regionally, and then regions are averaged, weighted by various factors such as their total area.
But even computing regional averages is a problem. I mentioned the urban/rural issue, but your post suggests that you did not appreciate the actual problem. The issue is the temperature perturbation in cities, where actual, raw, recorded temperatures are higher for the obvious reasons - a systematic error. For historical averages it does not work to say that those raw data are the temperatures, and so just go ahead and average them anyway. For example, consider a hypothetical region where the climate is not changing and so the actual regional average temperature is time invariant. If we include the temperature records from the cities we skew the computed regional average upwards, which would be OK if the amount of skewing were also time invariant. But as the cities get larger (which they have, obviously), the perturbation increases, and so in the hypothetical constant regional climate, the computed average would appear to climb, indicating climate change where there was none.
So, for the raw data to be usable for regional averaging, the urban perturbation has to be removed, which is done by comparison with nearby rural data among other methods. That is simply part of the essential data analysis - it is not data falsification. This particular example is somewhat ironic since it was the cause of a number of accusations of changing data and yet what it actually does is adjust more recent urban temperature records downwards because the urban perturbation has increased over time. The temperature change over the past couple of hundred years would appear rather larger without it.
So your statement above that multiple stations in any particular region already accounts for everything is not correct, and this is another example why the data have to be processed before averaging.
And so far we are only considering actual temperature measurements, as opposed to inferring temperature indirectly from other measurements such as cores, tree rings etc., which was the subject of @toddzrx's complaints. Those data require extensive processing to make them usable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
If there’s not enough coverage NOW to get an accurate reading in the first place–meaning that it will be changed at any arbitrary point in the future to any arbitrary temperature desired by the person changing it–then all the temperature readings we take NOW are irrelevant, not a reflection of the actual world, and CANNOT BE USED as evidence for ANY sort of claim about the climate. You see what I’m saying? The reading from Ol’ Doc Backwoods’ mercury thermometer in 1870 might not be the most accurate, but you’re telling me that our satellites are lying*? The satellites that NASA itself have said give more accurate temperature readings than land-based systems? What does that say about the lying land readings, then?
*Lying insofar as their data is so “wrong” as to be not worth retaining, as is the claim.
Accuracy is not an absolute term, which is why all the data that you see displayed will have error bars or confidence limits. But nothing here allows for "arbitrary" changes. For the reasons above, your recorded 56°F is what it is, but when used to compute a regional average it almost certainly needs to be corrected for various factors, and those corrections may improve or change as the understanding of them improves or more robust statistical methods are developed. So yes - I see what you are saying, but you are mistaken.
And then you have lost me on the "lying satellites" bit - I have no idea what you are referring to. Satellites do not measure temperature - they measure upwelling IR across certain bands that allows estimates of tropospheric temperature as a function of altitude, ground surface temperatures, and sea surface temperatures. They have the advantage of full geographical coverage of the planet, which makes geographic averaging much simpler, but have to be corrected for numerous factors to be accurate.
Given that you are clearly interested in this field, you might want to consider taking a course in statistics - I think that you would find it fascinating.
Comments
So objectivity is subjective; that’s what you’re going for here.
1. I was unaware that Apple was already making money based on the lie of AGW.
2. BECAUSE IT’S NOT TRUE AND THEORETICALLY THEY’D HAVE THE INTEGRITY TO STICK TO THE TRUTH.
Doesn’t have much of a clue about anything but neurosurgery.
So, being presented with the truth, as you have been, you just don’t care about it. That’s the problem with your comprehension, then. No wonder we can’t see eye to eye.
So objectivity is subjective; that’s what you’re going for here.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at - I'm not seeing the subjectivity that you are referring to.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at - I'm not seeing the subjectivity that you are referring to.
I go take a temperature/sea/ice reading at a specific, given point in time. Literally the mathematical definition of a point, if you like–use a Planck second. I then get the data from that reading.
You say that the reading will magically change at a later point in time because something something averaging; something something tweaking; something something algorithms because we “found” some better way of doing it.
The implication with the number of stations in existence in any given area is that they’re already accounting for anything you might care to want accounted for. Inventing new reasons to alter the readings when all the physical evidence still says otherwise makes said reasons meaningless.
If there’s not enough coverage NOW to get an accurate reading in the first place–meaning that it will be changed at any arbitrary point in the future to any arbitrary temperature desired by the person changing it–then all the temperature readings we take NOW are irrelevant, not a reflection of the actual world, and CANNOT BE USED as evidence for ANY sort of claim about the climate. You see what I’m saying? The reading from Ol’ Doc Backwoods’ mercury thermometer in 1870 might not be the most accurate, but you’re telling me that our satellites are lying*? The satellites that NASA itself have said give more accurate temperature readings than land-based systems? What does that say about the lying land readings, then?
*Lying insofar as their data is so “wrong” as to be not worth retaining, as is the claim.
It doesn’t even matter what metric we’re using to define ‘modern recording methods’. Every single one still proves false the lies spewed by the AGW crowd. We’re not experiencing the hottest year on record using the timespan covered by the most modern possible recording technology. We’re not experiencing the hottest year on record using the timespan covered by the slightly less modern recording technology. We’re not experiencing the hottest year on record using the timespan covered by pre-modern recording technology. We’re not experiencing the hottest year on record using a timespan within written human history even including using NO recording technology. Beyond that the point is proven and also irrelevant for the discussion of AGW.
Apple should stand against anyone who’s wrong.
Should Apple give governments a backdoor to its software simply because most governments want it? Should Apple give its users’ personal information to advertisers because most advertisers want it? It doesn’t matter who or what institution they’re fighting against as long as they’re fighting for the truth.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at - I'm not seeing the subjectivity that you are referring to.
I go take a temperature/sea/ice reading at a specific, given point in time. Literally the mathematical definition of a point, if you like–use a Planck second. I then get the data from that reading.
Oh - I see. You were not using the terms constant and variable in their formal scientific meaning - you were just trying to say that once a data point is taken, its value is set. Different thing altogether, but yes - I agree with you - the raw data does not change after being taken. That's the meaning of the term "raw data".
The implication with the number of stations in existence in any given area is that they’re already accounting for anything you might care to want accounted for. Inventing new reasons to alter the readings when all the physical evidence still says otherwise makes said reasons meaningless.
I gave a quite detailed explanation of this in #197, but not clear enough, I guess. Let me try again.
For the purposes of obtaining global average temperatures, individual temperature data are averaged both spatially and temporally. Averaging increases both precision and that part of accuracy determined by random errors. It does not address systematic errors unless they are randomly distributed between datasets about an accurate mean.
Averaging temporally is easy enough in principle because, generally, temperature data are taken at regular intervals and so all that is necessary is to sum the data over the interval in question and divide by the number of data points in that interval.
Averaging spatially is a harder problem. Firstly, we do not have geographically equally distributed temperature sites. Just to illustrate, supposing that we just had 10 sites around the equator and one at each pole. Summing those temperatures and dividing by 12 would not give a reasonable global average - it would be weighted far too heavily at the equator. So average temperatures are computed regionally, and then regions are averaged, weighted by various factors such as their total area.
But even computing regional averages is a problem. I mentioned the urban/rural issue, but your post suggests that you did not appreciate the actual problem. The issue is the temperature perturbation in cities, where actual, raw, recorded temperatures are higher for the obvious reasons - a systematic error. For historical averages it does not work to say that those raw data are the temperatures, and so just go ahead and average them anyway. For example, consider a hypothetical region where the climate is not changing and so the actual regional average temperature is time invariant. If we include the temperature records from the cities we skew the computed regional average upwards, which would be OK if the amount of skewing were also time invariant. But as the cities get larger (which they have, obviously), the perturbation increases, and so in the hypothetical constant regional climate, the computed average would appear to climb, indicating climate change where there was none.
So, for the raw data to be usable for regional averaging, the urban perturbation has to be removed, which is done by comparison with nearby rural data among other methods. That is simply part of the essential data analysis - it is not data falsification. This particular example is somewhat ironic since it was the cause of a number of accusations of changing data and yet what it actually does is adjust more recent urban temperature records downwards because the urban perturbation has increased over time. The temperature change over the past couple of hundred years would appear rather larger without it.
So your statement above that multiple stations in any particular region already accounts for everything is not correct, and this is another example why the data have to be processed before averaging.
And so far we are only considering actual temperature measurements, as opposed to inferring temperature indirectly from other measurements such as cores, tree rings etc., which was the subject of @toddzrx's complaints. Those data require extensive processing to make them usable.
*Lying insofar as their data is so “wrong” as to be not worth retaining, as is the claim.
Accuracy is not an absolute term, which is why all the data that you see displayed will have error bars or confidence limits. But nothing here allows for "arbitrary" changes. For the reasons above, your recorded 56°F is what it is, but when used to compute a regional average it almost certainly needs to be corrected for various factors, and those corrections may improve or change as the understanding of them improves or more robust statistical methods are developed. So yes - I see what you are saying, but you are mistaken.
And then you have lost me on the "lying satellites" bit - I have no idea what you are referring to. Satellites do not measure temperature - they measure upwelling IR across certain bands that allows estimates of tropospheric temperature as a function of altitude, ground surface temperatures, and sea surface temperatures. They have the advantage of full geographical coverage of the planet, which makes geographic averaging much simpler, but have to be corrected for numerous factors to be accurate.
Given that you are clearly interested in this field, you might want to consider taking a course in statistics - I think that you would find it fascinating.