Fun with graphs

[Botnst]

We spend a lot of time discussing global climate change.

here's a great site for quick plotting of data from a variety of sources.

Enjoy.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn/ghcn.SELECT.html

[Kuan]

It's really buggy.

[Botnst]

On a related subject. All named storms (yellow), all hurricanes (green) and major storms (reddish). Atlantic basin. Note general increase.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by Kuan

It's really buggy.

Works fine on my PC (XP, dual processor, 2 gigs ram; 7 T1's).

[Botnst]

Well argued view opposing GCC.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Well argued view opposing GCC.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

And this.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm

[Mistress]

What are you thoughts on this year's hurricane season? Bigger? Greater in number?

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by Siduri19

What are you thoughts on this year's hurricane season? Bigger? Greater in number?

Latest I heard from a knowledgeable person was about the same as last year with most hurricanes going up the east coast rather than into the Gulf. Also, that's what the insurance companies are planning for.

We'll see.

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by Botnst

On a related subject. All named storms (yellow), all hurricanes (green) and major storms (reddish). Atlantic basin. Note general increase.

You are holding tongue firmly in cheek, are you not? I see no major increase.

And this proves or disproves what?

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

You are holding tongue firmly in cheek, are you not? I see no major increase.

And this proves or disproves what?

Did I say 'major increase?'

There is a general increasing trend from the 1850's to today. Reasonable people have argued that some portion is due to the difference in observer density between the 1850's and today and so the first 50 - 75 years should be used as instructional, not definitive totals.

So then we have the most recent 50 - 75 years which is well documented. In that time frame there is a sort of hump in activity and then a significant increase in the past decade or so. Some folks have argued that we are in for about 20-50 years of stronger, more frequent tropical storms in the Atlantic.

But hey, that's why it is called a forecast and not a certainty.

B

.

[cmac2012]

Reason I said "major" is because that's the kind of graph that the global warming denyers cite and say, "See, ups and downs occurring due to natural factors."

Now that I look at it again, I can discern a slight increase.

[Botnst]

Most global warming graphs are difficult to believe, even by the people who beleive them. The data are so dang variable and the precise and accurate climatic data is of such short time period and unequal distribution that long-term trends are awfully noisy. Whenever I see a smooth graph purporting to be weather data I say, "Right. Pass me the bong."

Personally, I place a lot more value on physical models than I do on statistical extrapolations. But even physical models are pretty darned imprecise, though getting more reliable at each iteration. The problem is like this: The first models were very simple convective/radiative models that didn't take ocean chemistry and geochemical processes into account. Mostly because the understanding was so limited that it made the models less reliable to include them. So folks started doing the geochemical, oceanographical and limnological grunt work. This resulted in more accurate physico-chemical modeling of the interaction between the atmosphere and the surface. But uh-oh, this also revealed feedback loops that adjust counter to global warming. Etc. The current models are full of positive and negative feedback loops and the various elemental fluxes are more and more accurately understood and verifiably predictive, within some error margin.

So if you look at the various global warming projections from the early runs in the 1980's to the most recent runs today you find considerable convergence along trajectories from the different modeling efforts over time. The variances within each of the models have declined and the variances between models have declined. They are converging to a narrowing set of trajectories.

Will there be surprises along the way? You bet. Study any complex process and eventually you'll get into feedback loops and strange attractors and other peculiar functions. At every announcement of these bits there will be some who lament the impending demise of life on Earth and others who say, "What, me worry?"

Take a longer view. Step back from the immediate field of argument and follow research trends. Get the raw data and graph it yourself. People can be wrong.

Maybe one of us idjits will see what the aigheads missed. That's how science advances.

B

[cmac2012]

Sounds good to me. Who knows what adds up to the kind of unique perspective that sees the breakthroughs? Not to look as though your looking could matter is to sell yourself short from the git-go.

[MS Fowler]

Bot ( and others)

The problem I have with purported scientific evidence in any of these debates is, How can I determine if the data is unbiased, or is the result of some agenda-driven group?
In hermaneutics (art of preaching) there are two basic approaches:
exegesis---where the preacher allows his message to be developed out of the text, and
isigesis---where the preaher reads his own message into the text.

I assume the same sort of approaches are prevelant in the field of scientific research. Some are driven to produce certain results to maintain funding; others have a political agenda. The mass media is not helpful in sorting out the motives behind various research if it fits their agenda.
so I ask,
Bot, " What is truth?"

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Bot ( and others)

The problem I have with purported scientific evidence in any of these debates is, How can I determine if the data is unbiased, or is the result of some agenda-driven group?
In hermaneutics (art of preaching) there are two basic approaches:
exegesis---where the preacher allows his message to be developed out of the text, and
isigesis---where the preaher reads his own message into the text.

I assume the same sort of approaches are prevelant in the field of scientific research. Some are driven to produce certain results to maintain funding; others have a political agenda. The mass media is not helpful in sorting out the motives behind various research if it fits their agenda.
so I ask,
Bot, " What is truth?"

I'm not a person that believes in ultimate scientific truths as I believe that is an act of faith. My personal view of science is that factual evidence should lead to the most parsimonious explanation. The most effective way to approach a scientific question is ti assume that the facts are real and everything else is due to the observer.

Your question about exegesis vs isigesis may find it's analogues in the two types or methods of scientific pursuit.

There are two kinds of science that have considerable overlap. One is hypothesis testing and the other is observational. Hypothesis testing is the type of science we are taught in grade school science fairs. Observational science often (perhaps usually) does not test a hypothesis but relies on consensus among trained observers.

In either scientific methodology one of the primary assumptions is that the observers do not project themselves into the experiment. It is obviously not possible to do this. However, the vast majority of scientists do make an attempt to keep themselves out of the question being addressed. In almost every case that I have heard of, scientific failure is due to the scientist's failure to remove himself from the process. Examples are ego-driven ("my pet theory cannot fail"), financial ("I'll loose my grant"), prestige ("if they see how sloppily I did this my reputation will suffer"). This is one purpose of the peer review process--to weed-out observer bias.

Failing to get peer review before publication is a sure-fire way to get the whole community of scientists all huffy. They will immediately suspect that the person who couldn't wait for peer review in order to go public is suffering from one of those ego or financial or prestige thingies. this tension between peer review and going public is also the primary source of conspiracy theories concerning science. Usually the theory will go something like, "Big Oil", "Pharma", "Utilities", "Military" is suppressing Prof Jesus Da Jenyus' extremely important carburetor or new energy source or naturopathic design. When you look deeply you find Prof Jesus Da Jenyus couldn't publish his discovery/invention/innovation because it failed in peer review. Prof Jesus Da Jenyus projects his own motivation into his peers: "They" are jealous, envious, ignorant, or in the pay of some competing interest.

B