[Vision2020] Climate science temperature records and the media

[Art Deco]

Suppose you were an airline looking to set fares on the basis of costs, including fuel.

One element of fuel cost is the weight of the passengers.

Suppose for a month there were 1966 passengers over the average weight and 4376 passengers under the average weight.  Should you then contemplate lowering fares?

Suppose that the average over the average weight passenger was 30 pounds per passenger while the average under the average weight per passenger was 1 pound per passenger.

Hence, the total weight change would be 1966 x 30 - 4276 x 1 = 58980 - 4276 = 54704 more than the average.

Hence, even though there were less over the average weight passengers, there accumulated mass was a lot more than the accumulated mass of the under the average weight passengers.

Just looking a raw under the average counts of anything does not reveal any conclusions beyond those counts.

Also, if for only one month out of twelve the under the average weight passengers outnumbered the over the average weight passengers, drawing conclusions from such a single month count would likely lead to an error.

I have not analyzed the numbers you have referred to in context, but unless you can show that no errors like as those shown above occurred, your question is not due serious consideration.

Perhaps you might gain some insight from both the following easy to understand books:

How to Lie with Statistics
Proofiness

w.



From: Paul Rumelhart 
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:09 AM
To: Vision 2020 
Subject: [Vision2020] Climate science temperature records and the media


I ran into this story in the Seattle Times that came out yesterday:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015737378_heatrecords27.html

It basically talks about the fact that there were 1,966 high temperature 
records broken or tied this month (presumably in the US, though they 
don't say), and compares that to the odd fact that there were 4,376 
minimum temperature records broken in the same period of time (July 1 
through July 23).  So, instead of contemplating why the focus has been 
on the extreme heat when there are twice as many extreme cold records 
being broken the article goes on to explain how high temperature records 
being broken is an expected part of climate change and how it's tied 
into greenhouse gases and how we can expect more and more of that as the 
years go by.  It then throws in a comment that some natural gas 
commodity trading advisor is unsure how extensive any cooling might be.

So why is the breaking of 4,376 minimum temperature records in July a 
non-issue, but the breaking of 1,966 maximum temperature records in the 
same period is fodder for the standard AGW grist mill?  Aren't both 
anomalies likely equally important?

If maximum and minimum temperature records being broken are right in 
line with anthropogenic global warming or climate change or whatever, 
then what kind of weather would disprove it?

Paul

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110728/211d2cba/attachment.html