(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Serious question about statistics

R

rrlund

Well-known Member
I should know where this will end up,but I'll ask anyway.
I heard that 2013 tied as the seventh warmest year on record. It wasn't around here,plain and simple.
Question is,how does NOAA or whoever collects these statistics do it? Do they have the planet divided off on a grid system,or is it heavily loaded toward high population centers so that it's based on how weather the effects the most people or what?
In other words,is it based on how nature or natural parts of the world are effected,or on how many people are effected?
 
I would personally think that they collect weather records from every continent on the earth. Then they must have some way of coming up with a percentage like:
92% of countries had warmer weather this year than any other, so therefore it was the second warmest year on record.
Or something like that! You would think that I would have a better answer because I am 15 and know everything. :p Bryce
 
I think it also takes air temperatures over the ocean and the poles and other unpopulated areas into effect, but I don't know for sure.
Zach
 
Don't know and it does not matter. I had to take 4 levels of stat in college to get my degree. Loved it, frankly. One of the basic principles is the quality and relevance of the "sample". For example, if you wanted to know how the population of the world felt about green beans, you could not possibly ask everybody, so you would determine what a relevant sample would be and use it to predict the opinion of the total population. You would NOT ask 100 people.

They have been keeping records on weather for what, 100+ years? I don't think they have a big enough sample to adequately predict anything or make statements like they are. While I am sure that archeology to some extent can help them expand their sample, a lot of that is going to be guess work.

IMHO
 
I just wonder if there might be more reporting stations in an area like,say,southern California than in North and South Dakota and Minnesota combined that would skew the statistics in the average more toward southern California?
Not that it isn't averaged out,but would more reporting stations be like compounding interest causing the actual interest rate to be higher?
I never studied this stuff.
 
Use link below to see how NASA tracks temperatures and a full discussion of their and others analysis of the data.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
 
Just because it was not cold or hot in your back yard means nothing. It is a world average.
f5d4c856-1973-44b1-a6de-0697aa7c1841_650x366.jpg
 
There is so e speculation that cities grew around some of the sensors over the century, creating heat islands near more of the sensors, while less of tem are in the cooler empty lands.

Some of the biggest changes in sensors appear to have some city structure next to them theses days, but such ingformation tends to be presented by folks with a belief, so what is true and what is not seems to be very hard to say for sure.

Paul
 
Heat islands are part of my thinking exactly. I've heard some of these weather prognostacators say that it's not that the daytime temps are higher,but the night time lows are warmer. Well duh! As more and more concrete and asphalt accumulates around the official reporting stations,it's going to hold the heat over night.
I don't know if it happens everywhere,but when the TV weathermen give the forecast around here,they most generally always say "cooler in the outlying areas" when prediction overnight lows. There's good reason for that.
Some of you here in Michigan know that the temp in Big Rapids was always way out of synch with what nearby temps were. They finally moved that weather station a year and a half or so ago because it's location caused it to be so far out of whack.
 
So it is a grid system then. But it doesn't cover the poles from the look of that map. So to some extent could it be said that it's based on where people are,or will be if they're sailing the oceans?
 
Hey, I am offended by that comment! ha ha.

Being a Statistician by schooling, I probably make up closer to 95% of my answers. One of my professors said the first thing you ask when analyzing data "What do you want the answer to say?"

And yes, depending how you manipulate the data, you can get the results to say almost anything you want.

Rick
 
They are measuring 100ths of a degree, so, basically, it means nothing because they could not possibly have any data as comparatively fine tuned for any substantial lenght of time to make even an educated guess, much less a definitive statement. I have read other statements such as, ''the average temperature has increased 1.4 degrees F in the last 50 years'', again, declarations such as that mean nothing, because 50 years is nothing, planet time wise.
 
I'll tell you part of the reason I even ask. There was a guy being interviewed on NPR the other morning. He was a believer but the interview wasn't about climate,it just came around to it in a philosophical way.
He wasn't a rabid preacher of the idea,but his take was that it's a values issue more than a scientific issue. In his thoughts,nature doesn't care if it's one or two degrees warmer of colder. Nature will adjust and compensate in a hurry.
It comes down to personal or economic values. On one side,how much do you value the "environment". On the flip side he questioned the value,dollar wise of alternative energy. How much extra are we willing to spend on alternative energy if that's where our personal values lean. And are low income people willing to spend the money,or will government "values" subsidize the extra costs?

I just thought that it was an interesting conversation of values vs science and would statistics be skewed by population to reach a point that a majority wanted to reach?
 
Today, these studies are done with high- resolution(≤2km) satellites that measure surface temperature globally. The comparison is usually the average of all measured surface temperatures across the globe. So they"re referring to the average surface temperature of the Earth, not your backyard. Locally, the lower 48 had the 42nd warmest year on record for average surface temperature, and there is also variation by region within that area.

Here is some additional info…

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Uuksn_ZQ3FK

Now obviously, we have not had expensive satellites with capable instrumentation since the official record began. So as you go back to 1880 surface temperature was measured at observation stations by hand. Which was biased because in 1880 those observations were made in areas that were easily accessible by foot/car/ship, and also at lower resolution globally than today"s satellite data. There is uncertainty there that must be accounted for.
 
I believe that increases in water temperature are more heavily weighted in the stats than increases in air temperature, as water holds more heat?
 
What I always wonder is how anyone knows what is and what would be anyway....how do we know this isnt normal atmospheric change? When you compare the last 50 or 100 years, its like a 1/16 of an inch in the length of a mile.
 

We do know that the earth has been naturally warming since the 1300s when they had what today's climatologists called a "mini Ice age". At that time a long time cooling trend reversed and started the long term warming. In 1764 the original settlers of the town in northern NH where I was born and raised were nearly driven out by snow in August that killed nearly all of the corn crop that they were dependent on.
 
Lots of statistics in business and life is based upon bad data; bad because there is too little of it to be predictive, or bad because someone was trying to influence the decision, or just badly collected. Often business people slant the data to try to make their point, it happens every day. We used to call it "MUD" "made up data". The question I have is who stands to benefit if they are making up all the global warming data? Who will gain by faking the data? Money,power, influence??????? If not, why do we suspect it? I don't have a side...just asking.
 
I once wrote a term paper on global warming. Granted, this was probably 15 years ago, but what my research found was that going on past patterns, right now the Earth is nearing the end of a 10,000 year warming trend and within about 2,000 years will begin to cool off again.

I also found that at one time in the past, the average temp on Earth was some 14 degrees warmer than it is now. Polar ice caps didn't form until 250 million years ago. (An eyeblink in the Earths 3.6 billion year history).

To put it into perspective, take the entire Earth. Subtract all of the areas covered with water. Subtract all of the uninhabited/uninhabitable areas. Subtract all of the undeveloped countries that have no industry or minimal industry. Subtract the wilderness areas. (The U.S. is 38% wilderness).

The area you have left where man is engaging in activities that "might" affect the climate is really very small.
 
That's just it. Like I said in another reply,the promoters are coming around to saying that as far as nature is concerned,it doesn't matter. There won't be cataclysmic disasters,it's about values now. So what values are the governments of the world using? What's good economically? What makes the most money for a few? How much power can be gained from telling people how to live? Those are questions that need to be asked if it isn't about the weather anymore. Whatever happens,it will be based on the "values" of the majority,not on what happens to the climate or the weather,because not much is going to happen on that front. At least nothing that matters.
 
(quoted from post at 19:09:49 01/29/14) Lots of statistics in business and life is based upon bad data; bad because there is too little of it to be predictive, or bad because someone was trying to influence the decision, or just badly collected. Often business people slant the data to try to make their point, it happens every day. We used to call it "MUD" "made up data". The question I have is who stands to benefit if they are making up all the global warming data? Who will gain by faking the data? Money,power, influence??????? If not, why do we suspect it? I don't have a side...just asking.
Click to expand...

Edd - your point is very valid. And that must be applied to both sides of the issue: Who will benefit from suppressing or denying the data?
 
There are historical accounts of weather going back much farther than 50-100 yrs. Our ancestors recounted coming over here from Europe to PA. They indicated a colder climate then than today when sailing ships came to US ports in the 1750's-1770's. Most shipping companies would not set sail for Atlantic crossings after Dec 1 in the 1700's for fear the US seaports would be frozen over and the ice would not allow the physical docking of wooden passenger ships. This was for a 90 day period each winter. We do not have those ice limitations that I'm aware of today in shipping or at eastern US seaports. There was no money to be made by falsifying historical weather accounts in this era of our history.
 
I just think that if nature doesn't care,other than being the smartest person in the room,why do the statistics mean anything at all?

This didn't become climate change until we had a colder than normal winter just a few short years ago. We all know what it was until then.

With the majority of the population of the US in another never ending deep freeze and no signs of repeated disasters as has been predicted,by that I mean fewer than normal tornadoes last year,a few years now since a hurricane has hit the US,the whole issue is about to change again. I think what I heard was the first evidence of that. Just like GW became climate change,keep your ears open for this to become a "values" or morality issue instead of a scientific issue. We aren't seeing the threatened scientific results.

It was only a few years ago that it was released that nnalert had cornered the market on religious values and morality. The nnalert countered by saying that they were going to change the discussion of morality from religion to social and environmental "morality". Maybe I'm wrong,but I think that's where it's about to head. Stay tuned.
 
(quoted from post at 09:26:03 01/29/14) There is so e speculation that cities grew around some of the sensors over the century, creating heat islands near more of the sensors, while less of tem are in the cooler empty lands.

Some of the biggest changes in sensors appear to have some city structure next to them theses days, but such ingformation tends to be presented by folks with a belief, so what is true and what is not seems to be very hard to say for sure.

Paul
Click to expand...

Well, yes, I do believe that the difference between a grassy open field in 1950 and todays miles of blacktop are going to alter weather recording. Here's some interesting pics of weather recording sites that defy logic, "belief" aside!

http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm
 
It all depends on the data and how it's used. Face it, "climate change" is a huge money maker for a lot of the people charged with collecting the data. Follow the money boys.
 
The temperature thing is pretty subjective anyway place three different therometers at three different places a couple hundred yards apart and none will read the same temperature so what was the actual temperature that day?If I can't tell within a degree or so today then how in the world can someone say what the temperature was a couple hundred years ago?And yes I have moved the therometers around there are just some cold spots and and some warm spots.
 
Bret, climate change denial is far more profitable than climate change promotion. Certainly that's the case for the those who stand to lose if steps are taken to stop it. If you actually "follow the money", it will lead you straight to the Koch brothers.
 
Much can be learned by the movie, "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life" When death shows up at the dinner party because of the Salmon Mousse, he says one of the most profound things I have ever heard. He tells the Americans they talk too much. That's part of the problem.


We have 24 hour news channels that cant possibly fill 24 hours with anything interesting and factual, so they sensationalize and editorialize and speculate. That's where people get in trouble.



It doesn't really matter though. I mean, the thing I hate is how everyone makes this out to be such a bad thing, and how so many people will have their homes under water, and how the coastlines will change and climates will change.


Big deal. So what. Who cares? That's what I say. It won't be the end of the world. This world has survived massive meteor strikes and volcanoes and radioactive bombardment from outer space, and floods and earthquakes. Plate tectonics heaved the Rocky mountains up from a flat plain just as the Appalachians. The Appalachians used to be far taller than the Rockies and even taller than the Alps. Then years and years of wind erosion, and torrents of rain, freezing centuries, glaciers, and time, ticking away, has rotted and decayed them down to practically nothing compared to what they once were. Do you think a few diesel engines idling, or an incandescent bulb is going to be the end of human civilization?
 
(quoted from post at 17:51:31 01/29/14) Bret, climate change denial is far more profitable than climate change promotion. Certainly that's the case for the those who stand to lose if steps are taken to stop it. If you actually "follow the money", it will lead you straight to the Koch brothers.
Click to expand...

Sorry Mark, I have to disagree entirely. How many "green" energy related companies have gotten billions, produced absolutely nothing, gone bankrupt and walked away scot free? Think Solyndra. In Oct of 2012 it was over 50 companies and $90 BILLION in taxpayer money lost. And lets not forget all the scientists and their institutes, etc. that get zillions to study the "change". At one point some years back I had a website saved that listed people and companies who were getting public and private funding to study global warming/climate change. It's a huge industry.

Now the Kock brothers aren't squeaky clean, but are they any worse than Al Gore making millions off climate change while still holding a lot of Occidental Petroleum? Or his creating and owning a carbon bank that only he could buy credits from? He was a lying buffoon in 2000 and he's still a lying buffoon and so are a lot of other players in the Green Industry. And lets not ever forget the wording in the opening pages of the IPCC reports that more or less came out and said that regardless of the evidence presented, nothing would change the agenda of the panel, that man made global warming was real. It's a big industry whose goals are wealth redistribution and control of vast amounts of power and money with no accountability.
 
(quoted from post at 01:51:31 01/30/14) Bret, climate change denial is far more profitable than climate change promotion. Certainly that's the case for the those who stand to lose if steps are taken to stop it. If you actually "follow the money", it will lead you straight to the Koch brothers.
Click to expand...

It's not really the Koch Brothers you need to look at, other than they are investors. It's the big energy companies. The carbon-based fuel in the ground is their main assets, their future earnings. If addressing climate change significantly reduces the value of those assets, how do you think they're going to react? Follow the money is right - where does money funding denial researcher come from? Good luck tracing that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - {gun related}
Replies
13
Views
2K
Anonymous-0
A
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top