However I believe that is different than taking one measurement at a thousand different locations by a thousand different people using a thousand different blunt devices and somehow claiming the average to be a much higher degree of accuracy than the blunt devices allowed.

Rules (or their misapplication) pertaining to the law of large numbers, normal distribution and other assumptions necessary for Statistics to trump rules of science and measurement in climate ‘science’ are highly suspect I would expect, and have given us nothing but ‘noise, if they claim to be accurate to a hundredth of a degree over a hundred years. The law of Common Sense is of some assistance here. The law of Critical Thinking is also helpful.

]]>Likewise, in your ±1 C resolution thermometer example, zillions of readings just get you arbitrarily close to ±1 C; your limit of resolution.

Nope, you are wrong. If you have thousands of thermometers, some might read 25degc, some might read 26degC. You will get resolution (precision) that increases as the sqrt(N) thermometers. The actual measurement errors (if they are uncorrelated) by the operators increase the noise level and increase the resolution as the number of thermometers goes up. (Sqrt(n)) doesn’t happen without noise being present). You could argue that all thermometer readers of a particular time period round up when the reading is between two tics on the thermometer (a correlated error), but I don’t think you are arguing that. If you are, post the source please.

You can actually perform a little experiment yourself to see how this works. If you put your finger without moving on a surface, you can’t feel very much texture. If you move your finger around, however, you can feel lots of texture. This is mathematically similar to oversampling. The movement is the noise, and your nervous system is doing the sampling.

On the accuracy side you also get some benefit with more thermometers. For example, if your calibration source has an accuracy of +/0.1degC, and your thermometers have a resolution of 1degC, some will read say 25degC and some will read 26degC at the calibration lab (both are in spec of +/- 1degC). On average they may read 25.5 degC and with enough thermometers the average reading will converge on the accuracy and precision of the original calibration source. This particular side of the metrology argument (accuracy) is more prone to correlated errors however (e.g. if one calibration lab is doing all the work for thousands of thermometers there’s not much benefit). So this is more hypothetical, you’d have to back this up with data about who/what/when/where thermometers are being calibrated.

I agree there are numerous sources of correlated errors such as UHI, bad site placement, and increasing adjustments all in one direction. I think you are on the wrong track with this particular argument regarding precision and accuracy though. **Metrology** is a very well studied area and the idea of increasing resolution by oversampling is the basis of all modern digital audiio equipment and digital instrumentation. If it didn’t work it would all sound like crap and we couldn’t manufacture anything that required high resolution measurements (which would include all electronics)..

(I was a metrologist in a previous job)

Peter

]]>Heating and Cooling Degree Days

Heating and cooling degree days can be used to relate how much more or less you might spend on heating or air conditioning.

To calculate the heating degree days for a particular day, find the day’s average temperature by adding the day’s high and low temperatures and dividing by two. If the number is above 65, there are no heating degree days that day. If the number is less than 65, subtract it from 65 to find the number of heating degree days.

Cooling degree days are also based on the day’s average minus 65. They relate the day’s temperature to the energy demands of air conditioning. For example, if the day’s high is 90 and the day’s low is 70, the day’s average is 80. 80 minus 65 is 15 cooling degree days.

Come on you math guyes, make a model of it!

]]>The cooling of the Arctic since 1950-60 has been most marked in the very same regions which experienced the strongest warming in the earlier decades of the 20thC, namely the central Arctic and northernmost parts of the two great continents remote from the world’s oceans, but also in the Norwegian-East Greenland Sea….

A greatly increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for fifty years. In April-May 1968 and 1969, the island was half surrounded by ice, as had not occurred since 1888.

Such sea ice years have always been dreaded in Iceland’s history because of the depression of summer temperatures and the effects on farm production….. The 1960’s also saw the abandonment of attempts at grain growing in Iceland, which had been resumed in the warmer decades of this century after a lapse of some hundreds of years… ]]>

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/11456 ]]>

Now they should spend more time calculating the effect on the C02 level and climate by producing such a meaningless study. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/28/met-office-supercomputer-a-megawatt-here-a-megawatt-there-and-pretty-soon-were-talking-real-carbon-pollution/

Monumental waste of time and energy.

]]>I disagree with the part where you use words and arguments by analogy rather than mathematical definitions. Write the mathematical definitions. If you can’t, just say so.

Lots of people don’t know control theory, even simple linear control theory. There’s nothing shameful about that.

That’s your answer to a request for a direct quote?

Sorry, Dino, but I was serious. As I said:

QUOTE THE WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH AND TELL US WHY YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM!

As you have not done that, I fear I still don’t know what you are referring to.

In any case, if you wish to provide the math, please do so, as I have no interest in doing so. Me, I’m interested in the concepts. I’m not trying to explain how to do the math. I’m trying to explain the concepts to a lay audience. And the problem with writing for a lay audience is that as a rule of thumb, every number I put in the post loses me one reader, and every equation I put in there loses me ten readers. So I generally err on the side of explanation rather than math.

So if you wish to bring up the math, please go ahead, and I’m happy to discuss it. However, I don’t understand what the math would show that is different than my explanation … but hey, if you can disprove my work mathematically I’m more than interested.

Up to you,

w.

]]>Are you sure it’s chaotic and not random? Why/why not? Use math. Thanks.

Dinostratus August 4, 2015 at 8:21 pm Edit

Still waiting for math. Tell us the difference between chaotic and random. Double dog dare you.

Thanks for the question, Dinostratus, but I fear that your manner of trying to get your way doesn’t work with me. I don’t respond well to that kind of ragging.

However, your luck is amazing. As it happens I’ve been looking at that very question for a couple of months now. I have the post half written. However, you’ll have to wait, because I plan to finish it on my schedule, not yours.

All the best,

w.

]]>Cooling Degree Days 386

Heating Degree Days 0

What in the H*11 does that mean?

]]>For those who don’t get out much, the excess death rate of the elderly in the UK grows each winter. Not, probably, from dirty air. These excess deaths do help the health care death squads from pulling the fiscal plug more frequently than they might, but that’s little comfort to those who die bundled up in old newsprint rather than in a clean hospital room. The hospital doesn’t allow pets. Consider the consequences of that.

]]>Not necessarily. Just because a flawed method using blunt instruments showed a slight warming when it was supposed to one time doesn’t mean it wasn’t still just showing noise…after all, a flawed method showing noise still has a fifty fifty chance of catching a warming or cooling.

]]>I’m tired of all this “world government” stuff. Next it will be black helicopters, FEMA camps etc…….. All this right-wing rhetoric gives scepticism a bad name. In my humble opinion.

]]>Werner Brozek it doesn’t matter what it came in this month.

It could make a huge difference!

When that was written, the slope was 0 (or slightly negative) from September 1996. The zero line would have been around an anomaly of 0.24. Had the anomaly stayed at 0.24 or very close to it since then, the pause would still start in September 1996. However since it is now starting in January 1997, it just means that more recent months were above 0.24. And a really strong El Nino over many months could make the pause disappear entirely as has already happened with GISS and Hadcrut4.

On the other hand, if we get a strong La Nina, with anomalies being way below 0.24, then the start of the pause gets pushed back earlier.

Today, the pause is 18 years and 7 months long on RSS and it starts January 1, 1997 since that is the first full month that the slope is negative. The starting time could change next month however if the August anomaly is way above or way below 0.24.