Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Earth has not warmed for 15 years!
8 views
Skip to first unread message
killwhang
Jan 29, 2012, 3:45:00 PM1/29/12
to
Where are all the "believers"? Have they hid their heads in shame?
(Newsroom America) -- New data released by a noted climate research
institute last week indicated that the earth has not warmed in more
than a decade, findings that are sure to challenge the global warming
mentality for years held by a number of scientists.
The data, released with little fanfare by the University of East
Anglia Climatic Research Unit in London, shows that the earth has not
warmed in at least 15 years. The university's conclusion was based on
readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations.
In fact, the university said, it was possible the earth was moving
into a cooling cycle, suggesting "that we could even be heading for a
mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost
fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century," London's Daily Mail
newspaper reported.
Leading climate scientists told the paper that the sun, after emitting
high energy levels throughout the 20th century, may be entering a
period of "grand minimum" output, which could produce colder summers,
extreme winters and shorter seasons for growing food.
Other climate scientists made similar predictions.
"World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or
more," Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate
Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute, told the paper.
"It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that
the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to
demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help," he
said.
Some scientists said models set forth by in 2000 by the British
government have not yet run their course and could still wind up
producing warmer temperatures.
Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, a noted
U.S. climatologist, said many scientists "are not surprised" by the
warming pause.
She said it's becoming more evident that factors other than CO2 affect
global warming and cooling, such as the 60-year water temperature
cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, the Mail reported.
(Newsroom America) -- New data released by a noted climate research
institute last week indicated that the earth has not warmed in more
than a decade, findings that are sure to challenge the global warming
mentality for years held by a number of scientists.
The data, released with little fanfare by the University of East
Anglia Climatic Research Unit in London, shows that the earth has not
warmed in at least 15 years. The university's conclusion was based on
readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations.
In fact, the university said, it was possible the earth was moving
into a cooling cycle, suggesting "that we could even be heading for a
mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost
fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century," London's Daily Mail
newspaper reported.
Leading climate scientists told the paper that the sun, after emitting
high energy levels throughout the 20th century, may be entering a
period of "grand minimum" output, which could produce colder summers,
extreme winters and shorter seasons for growing food.
Other climate scientists made similar predictions.
"World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or
more," Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate
Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute, told the paper.
"It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that
the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to
demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help," he
said.
Some scientists said models set forth by in 2000 by the British
government have not yet run their course and could still wind up
producing warmer temperatures.
Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, a noted
U.S. climatologist, said many scientists "are not surprised" by the
warming pause.
She said it's becoming more evident that factors other than CO2 affect
global warming and cooling, such as the 60-year water temperature
cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, the Mail reported.
Sam Wormley
Jan 29, 2012, 6:32:01 PM1/29/12
to
Climatologists use 30-year trends
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
Sam Wormley
Jan 29, 2012, 6:56:26 PM1/29/12
to
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Climatologists use 30-year trends
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
Yes, I am saying if the last 50% of the data points disagree with the
> Climatologists use 30-year trends
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
global warming hypothis, then you must ignore that 50% of the data.
Paul Cardinale
Jan 29, 2012, 7:36:07 PM1/29/12
to
On Jan 29, 3:56 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
trumps science.
No surprise.
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Climatologists use 30-year trends
> >http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
>
> Yes, I am saying if the last 50% of the data points disagree with the
> global warming hypothis, then you must ignore that 50% of the data.
So in your pathetic little (and I do mean LITTLE) mind, zealotry
>
> > Climatologists use 30-year trends
> >http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
>
> Yes, I am saying if the last 50% of the data points disagree with the
> global warming hypothis, then you must ignore that 50% of the data.
trumps science.
No surprise.
Sam Wormley
Jan 29, 2012, 7:58:49 PM1/29/12
to
On 1/29/12 5:32 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Climatologists use 30-year trends
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+50+years
> Climatologists use 30-year trends
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
Scotty
Jan 29, 2012, 8:04:03 PM1/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:45:00 -0800 (PST), killwhang <gyans...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Where are all the "believers"? Have they hid their heads in shame?
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Voodoo Science, aka computer models...
No need to read the narrative, just look at Fig. 1
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/28/tamino-once-again-misleads-his-followers/
Sixteen prominent scientists publish a letter in WSJ saying there’s "No
Need to Panic About Global Warming"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/27/sixteen-prominent-scientists-publish-a-letter-in-wsj-saying-theres-no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming/
New Jet Propulsion Lab Analysis of Global Climate Model: Simulations of
Arctic Ice Are 'Rather Poor'
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/new-jet-propulsion-lab-analysis-of-global-climate-model-simulations-of-arctic-ice-are-rather-poor.html
"First Estimate of Solar Cycle 25 Amplitude - may be the smallest in over
300 years"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/first-estimate-of-solar-cycle-25-amplitudesmallest-in-over-300-years/
Nice graphic of the sunspot history: 1749 -2040. Of course it is a
prediction based on a hypothesis, we'll have to wait and see.
We knew all along that this was happening but now confirmed: I'm outraged
and Iceland is not amused..
"How GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s Temperatures"
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/how-giss-has-totally-corrupted-reykjaviks-temperatures/
NOAA Don’t Believe The Iceland Met Office
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/noaa-dont-believe-the-iceland-met-office/
http://pindanpost.com/2012/01/25/adulterating-the-data-to-fix-the-agenda/
"GISS Make The Past Colder In Reykjavik"
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/giss-make-the-past-colder-in-reykjavik/
"I have contacted the Iceland Met Office to get their view on the GHCN
adjustments. Their reply could not be clearer :-
a) They were not aware these adjustments were being made.
b) They do not know why they have been made, but are asking!
c) They do not accept the "corrections" and have no intention of amending
their own records."
From the Iceland met office:
http://en.vedur.is/climatology/clim/nr/1213
What can one say? Except that these clowns are dragging all Science into
disrepute.
"Burt Rutan on Schooling the Rogues".
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/28/burt-rutan-on-schooling-the-rogue/
I recently read a treatise showing that CAGW theory is a fraud. I thought
it was a good summary and agreed to have my name used as a supporter of the
facts when it was published by the Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Then, shortly after publication, an alarmist engineer wrote an "open letter
to Burt".
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/27/open-letter-to-burt-rutan/
"I usually ignore these diatribes, but found a few moments to respond:
Scroll down to comment #4 for my answer".
Scott
--
Trust is a commodity that you can only sell once.
wrote:
>Where are all the "believers"? Have they hid their heads in shame?
Voodoo Science, aka computer models...
No need to read the narrative, just look at Fig. 1
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/28/tamino-once-again-misleads-his-followers/
Sixteen prominent scientists publish a letter in WSJ saying there’s "No
Need to Panic About Global Warming"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/27/sixteen-prominent-scientists-publish-a-letter-in-wsj-saying-theres-no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming/
New Jet Propulsion Lab Analysis of Global Climate Model: Simulations of
Arctic Ice Are 'Rather Poor'
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/new-jet-propulsion-lab-analysis-of-global-climate-model-simulations-of-arctic-ice-are-rather-poor.html
"First Estimate of Solar Cycle 25 Amplitude - may be the smallest in over
300 years"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/first-estimate-of-solar-cycle-25-amplitudesmallest-in-over-300-years/
Nice graphic of the sunspot history: 1749 -2040. Of course it is a
prediction based on a hypothesis, we'll have to wait and see.
We knew all along that this was happening but now confirmed: I'm outraged
and Iceland is not amused..
"How GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s Temperatures"
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/how-giss-has-totally-corrupted-reykjaviks-temperatures/
NOAA Don’t Believe The Iceland Met Office
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/noaa-dont-believe-the-iceland-met-office/
http://pindanpost.com/2012/01/25/adulterating-the-data-to-fix-the-agenda/
"GISS Make The Past Colder In Reykjavik"
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/giss-make-the-past-colder-in-reykjavik/
"I have contacted the Iceland Met Office to get their view on the GHCN
adjustments. Their reply could not be clearer :-
a) They were not aware these adjustments were being made.
b) They do not know why they have been made, but are asking!
c) They do not accept the "corrections" and have no intention of amending
their own records."
From the Iceland met office:
http://en.vedur.is/climatology/clim/nr/1213
What can one say? Except that these clowns are dragging all Science into
disrepute.
"Burt Rutan on Schooling the Rogues".
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/28/burt-rutan-on-schooling-the-rogue/
I recently read a treatise showing that CAGW theory is a fraud. I thought
it was a good summary and agreed to have my name used as a supporter of the
facts when it was published by the Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Then, shortly after publication, an alarmist engineer wrote an "open letter
to Burt".
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/27/open-letter-to-burt-rutan/
"I usually ignore these diatribes, but found a few moments to respond:
Scroll down to comment #4 for my answer".
Scott
--
Trust is a commodity that you can only sell once.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
Jan 29, 2012, 8:39:48 PM1/29/12
to
On Jan 30, 2:04 pm, Scotty <spsco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:45:00 -0800 (PST), killwhang <gyansor...@gmail.com>
Heh heh
The Daily Mail!
Thanks for the chuckle. Meanwhile, as the Mail and the Telegraph
continue to feed their customer base the shite they crave, the global
tempearture continues to rise and the ice continues to melt. The
Arctic is currently at a new 2011 record high beating the 2010 record
high set only last year.
CO2 forcing absolutely dwarfs solar forcing. There will be a new
record global temperature that beats 2010 as soon as this double-dip
La Nina swings back to an El Nino. Probably by 2015 - just as the
models predict.
It's a cycle - duh! ie: Nuetral.
Nothing has changed you gullible twat.
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:45:00 -0800 (PST), killwhang <gyansor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Where are all the "believers"? Have they hid their heads in shame?
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-...
>
> >Where are all the "believers"? Have they hid their heads in shame?
Heh heh
The Daily Mail!
Thanks for the chuckle. Meanwhile, as the Mail and the Telegraph
continue to feed their customer base the shite they crave, the global
tempearture continues to rise and the ice continues to melt. The
Arctic is currently at a new 2011 record high beating the 2010 record
high set only last year.
CO2 forcing absolutely dwarfs solar forcing. There will be a new
record global temperature that beats 2010 as soon as this double-dip
La Nina swings back to an El Nino. Probably by 2015 - just as the
models predict.
It's a cycle - duh! ie: Nuetral.
Nothing has changed you gullible twat.
Sam Wormley
Jan 29, 2012, 8:44:17 PM1/29/12
to
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
has not warmed for 15 years, but ignore that and be very afraid.
Peter Webb
Jan 29, 2012, 8:47:11 PM1/29/12
to
>
> What can one say? Except that these clowns are dragging all Science into
> disrepute.
>
Bingo. And that is the real long term problem.
> What can one say? Except that these clowns are dragging all Science into
> disrepute.
>
These people keep draping themselves in "science", and using the goodwill
and trust associated with brand "science" to peddle their bullshit. When the
product is understood by the general public to be nonsense, it is the
science brand itself that will suffer.
Sam Wormley
Jan 29, 2012, 8:52:16 PM1/29/12
to
> Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics
> Subject: Re: Earth has not warmed for 15 years!
> Followup-To: sci.physics
> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 01:44:17 -0000
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 13
> Message-ID: <h89hv8-...@mail.specsol.com>
> References: <78fcda30-736b-4543...@nu6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> <HPKdnWiQi_BsS7jS...@mchsi.com> <k7CdnWwYXP3XdrjS...@mchsi.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 5FQzpG9PgxCHgWX2ynv4yg.user.speranza.aioe.org
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@aioe.org
> User-Agent: tin/2.0.1-20111224 ("Achenvoir") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.10 (i86pc))
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
> Bytes: 1290
> Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com sci.physics:1805967 sci.skeptic:964773
Adam Whyte-Settlar
Jan 29, 2012, 9:17:47 PM1/29/12
to
On Jan 30, 2:04 pm, Scotty <spsco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:45:00 -0800 (PST), killwhang <gyansor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Where are all the "believers"? Have they hid their heads in shame?
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-...
>
> >Where are all the "believers"? Have they hid their heads in shame?
Perhaps some of you might be interested in what the Met Office paper
*actualy says* rather than what The Mail claims it says:
"In its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would
be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less
than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to
decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global
temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our
findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in
hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant
influence of greenhouse gases."
Wow! A reduction of 0.08C! That would mean an increase by 2100 of
'only' around 3.92C instead of 4C.
We're saved!!
Keep posting your cherry-picked Gish Gallop nonsense Scotty - you do
more to illustrate the absurdity of your "position" than anything I
could be bothered to post.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Jan 29, 2012, 9:22:39 PM1/29/12
to
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/29/12 7:44 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/29/12 5:32 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> Climatologists use 30-year trends
>>>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+50+years
>>
>> Where anyone with the slighest intelligence can clearly see that the Earth
>> has not warmed for 15 years, but ignore that and be very afraid.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Another Forgery from despicable jimp:
Two thoughts for the hive collective that is swormley1 to concider:
> On 1/29/12 7:44 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/29/12 5:32 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> Climatologists use 30-year trends
>>>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+50+years
>>
>> Where anyone with the slighest intelligence can clearly see that the Earth
>> has not warmed for 15 years, but ignore that and be very afraid.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Another Forgery from despicable jimp:
1) If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
2) Fuck off and die.
Jason
Jan 29, 2012, 9:32:39 PM1/29/12
to
"Peter Webb" <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jg4ssl$5ir$2...@news.albasani.net...
Perceptions are "feelings" and it is just tough titties that
the Universe does not bend over backwards for those looking for Science to
make them rich and lazy.
That's not what science does,
though some have indeed tried to make it so for quite a few decades now.
Sure there is money in the results science discovers,
but it is frequently a two edged sword that has no handle.
If you produce good results, science usually pays well or provides for a
good life.
[but not always, think of how cool N. Tesla was and his inglorious end.]
Charlatans get away with their hoaxes for a while using the political mantle
of respectability, but eventually they pay the piper. To them [like Ted
Kennedy & others] it seems worth it; but they damage untold millions by
their not being held to the truth and for what they do.
I see pockets of people doing science right, but for the most part now it is
a political way to scam money from everyone while holding down those who do
it the right way.
Existing hoaxers and those that supported the hoax are going to get dinged.
eg. many of the popular "science" magazines like "Scientific American" hit
by many of those by us unsubscribing.
Same for many of the Journals [if and only if the same directors of
submissions remain].
Otherwise new journals & magazines will arise and [like a new layer of fresh
lava] the old will be buried and new real science will arise. It cannot help
but do so no matter how the AGW religionists blacktop over real science in
order to feather their nests.
AGW is the Secular version of what the Roman Catholic Church did in the
middle ages when they persecuted individuals who actually revealed excellent
science by experiment and observation and submitted their work to the
scrutiny of peer reproducability. All it took was verification that those
reproducing the experiments were doing so correctly, that is why it was
public so that ANYONE and more than one individual or group could verify the
results.
Now the scientific community in league with the political public sector is
denying those who would do good work the materials necessary and the access
to those materials... using financial terrorism and confiscation.
Sequestering the ability to reproduce results to a cadre of elites is not
only a bad idea, it is dangerous to the freedoms and futures of mankind.
That is not to condone giving data that could be misused to hostile enemies,
but
it does come with accountability for those within civilized society who
misuse or
redistribute that data to our enemies
[Note: Who constitute our enemy vary over time. That is a logistical
problem, particularly for idealists and especially for Utopians - who are
entirely braindead to the consequences of their actions. All they care about
are their "good"<sic> intentions.]
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Jason
Jan 29, 2012, 9:37:17 PM1/29/12
to
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:69e51c76-357f-4ba0...@v6g2000pba.googlegroups.com...
Ha! That's funny! I wonder what the AGW predictions would be if they
removed the sun from the solar system?
According to their science we would probably still all die of AGW [damn Club
of Rome morons]
[more likely the political AGW rather than any real AGW.]
<snicker>
killwhang
Jan 29, 2012, 9:38:31 PM1/29/12
to
On Jan 30, 2:39 pm, Adam Whyte-Settlar <grawill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2:04 pm, Scotty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CO2 forcing absolutely dwarfs solar forcing. There will be a newrecord global temperature that beats 2010as soon as this double-dipLa Nina swings back to an El Nino. Probably by 2015 - just as the
the temp scale, when it goes down it's actually going up!
> On Jan 30, 2:04 pm, Scotty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CO2 forcing absolutely dwarfs solar forcing. There will be a newrecord global temperature that beats 2010as soon as this double-dipLa Nina swings back to an El Nino. Probably by 2015 - just as the
> models predict.
> It's a cycle - duh! ie: Nuetral.
It's a cycle! Lol! What next will they dream up. Remember they changed
> It's a cycle - duh! ie: Nuetral.
the temp scale, when it goes down it's actually going up!
Peter Webb
Jan 29, 2012, 10:27:51 PM1/29/12
to
"Jason" <Ar...@naught.org> wrote in message
news:jg4vpb$4j3$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:69e51c76-357f-4ba0...@v6g2000pba.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 2:04 pm, Scotty <spsco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:45:00 -0800 (PST), killwhang
>> <gyansor...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Where are all the "believers"? Have they hid their heads in shame?
>> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-...
>
> Perhaps some of you might be interested in what the Met Office paper
> *actualy says* rather than what The Mail claims it says:
>
>
> "In its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would
> be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less
> than man-made carbon dioxide.
Ohh, so this is a prediction based upon their theory.
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:69e51c76-357f-4ba0...@v6g2000pba.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 2:04 pm, Scotty <spsco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:45:00 -0800 (PST), killwhang
>> <gyansor...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Where are all the "believers"? Have they hid their heads in shame?
>> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-...
>
> Perhaps some of you might be interested in what the Met Office paper
> *actualy says* rather than what The Mail claims it says:
>
>
> "In its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would
> be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less
> than man-made carbon dioxide.
How good have their predictions been in the past?
For example, what temperature change did the predict for the period 2000 to
2011 ?
Lets have a look and see just how reliable their predictions have turned out
to be in the past before deciding what credence to give their latest
predictions.
k...@kymhorsell.com
Jan 29, 2012, 10:57:42 PM1/29/12
to
In sci.skeptic Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Climatologists use 30-year trends
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
They also use least squares/regression to calculate trends rather than subtract
> Climatologists use 30-year trends
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
first and last datapoint (hence ignoring data in between),
but that's neither here nor there. :)
--
[confusing the years between records and the number of years the
records are about:]
And BTW, by your logic, the 1998 hot year (supposedly hottest EVAHH)
just proved hot years are rare. Does that sound right to you?
Yes, take time and think it through.
-- Ron House <rho...@smartchat.net.au>, Bris, 09 Dec 2010 23:31:38
La N.
Jan 29, 2012, 11:19:34 PM1/29/12
to
news:7d05af46-4f8b-4b3e...@x6g2000pbk.googlegroups.com...
**********************************
Scottie doesn't read the Daily Mail for the lasvicious stories of murder and
mahem and showbiz gossip. He gets his scientific references from it!
Scottie, a lot of us love the Mail! Don't stop reading it on Adam's
account!
- nil
Scottie doesn't read the Daily Mail for the lasvicious stories of murder and
mahem and showbiz gossip. He gets his scientific references from it!
Scottie, a lot of us love the Mail! Don't stop reading it on Adam's
account!
- nil
Adam Whyte-Settlar
Jan 29, 2012, 10:59:59 PM1/29/12
to
On Jan 30, 2:04 pm, Scotty <spsco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:45:00 -0800 (PST), killwhang <gyansor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Where are all the "believers"? Have they hid their heads in shame?
>
> >Where are all the "believers"? Have they hid their heads in shame?
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-...
Perhaps some of you might be interested in what the Met Office paper
*actualy says* rather than what The Mail claims it says:
"In its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would
be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less
Perhaps some of you might be interested in what the Met Office paper
*actualy says* rather than what The Mail claims it says:
"In its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would
be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less
Peter Webb
Jan 30, 2012, 12:29:50 AM1/30/12
to
"La N." <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jg55or$j8u$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7d05af46-4f8b-4b3e...@x6g2000pbk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 2:04 pm, Scotty <spsco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:45:00 -0800 (PST), killwhang
>> <gyansor...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Where are all the "believers"? Have they hid their heads in shame?
>> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-...
>
> Heh heh
>
> The Daily Mail!
>
> Thanks for the chuckle. Meanwhile, as the Mail and the Telegraph
> continue to feed their customer base the shite they crave, the global
> tempearture continues to rise
Well no, actually. It was cooler last year than it was in 1998. In fact, the
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7d05af46-4f8b-4b3e...@x6g2000pbk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 2:04 pm, Scotty <spsco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:45:00 -0800 (PST), killwhang
>> <gyansor...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Where are all the "believers"? Have they hid their heads in shame?
>> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-...
>
> Heh heh
>
> The Daily Mail!
>
> Thanks for the chuckle. Meanwhile, as the Mail and the Telegraph
> continue to feed their customer base the shite they crave, the global
> tempearture continues to rise
temperature has pretty much plateaued since 1998; whilst it is technically
cooler now than it was in 1998, in practice this is over a small range and
"plateau" would seem more accurate than "decline".
One thing that definitely hasn't happened is that the global temperatures
have "continued to rise" during this century. That they have slightly
declined is a matter of historical fact.
> and the ice continues to melt. The
> Arctic is currently at a new 2011 record high beating the 2010 record
> high set only last year.
>
Is that why you are using it as a proxy, because it clearly isn't a good
indicator of average global temperatures?
> CO2 forcing absolutely dwarfs solar forcing. There will be a new
> record global temperature that beats 2010 as soon as this double-dip
> La Nina swings back to an El Nino. Probably by 2015 - just as the
> models predict.
Been hearing this shit for years.
Your crappy predictions are not experimental evidence.
> It's a cycle - duh! ie: Nuetral.
> Nothing has changed you gullible twat.
>
> **********************************
>
> Scottie doesn't read the Daily Mail for the lasvicious stories of murder
> and mahem and showbiz gossip. He gets his scientific references from it!
> Scottie, a lot of us love the Mail! Don't stop reading it on Adam's
> account!
source.
Have you people never heard of the scientific method?
>
> - nil
>
>
>
>
>
Jason
Jan 30, 2012, 1:28:25 AM1/30/12
to
"killwhang" <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
What?, kill<your>whang, you've never heard of long wave cycles?
Ever hear of the Pleistocene?
Cyclothems?
Varval lakes?
You might be braindead if you actualy pursue
your non-sequitor statement as a valid counter argument.
With that kind of logic it would be a dice game for you
to even squeak by a Miller Analogies college entrance test.
HardySpicer
Jan 30, 2012, 1:51:38 AM1/30/12
to
On Jan 30, 12:56 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
were an engineer? You are saying that if you make a mathermatical
model and it doesn't agree with reality that reality is wrong!!!
Hardy
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Climatologists use 30-year trends
> >http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
>
> Yes, I am saying if the last 50% of the data points disagree with the
> global warming hypothis, then you must ignore that 50% of the data.
Are you serious? do you listen to what you have written? I though you
>
> > Climatologists use 30-year trends
> >http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
>
> Yes, I am saying if the last 50% of the data points disagree with the
> global warming hypothis, then you must ignore that 50% of the data.
were an engineer? You are saying that if you make a mathermatical
model and it doesn't agree with reality that reality is wrong!!!
Hardy
killwhang
Jan 30, 2012, 1:36:21 AM1/30/12
to
On Jan 30, 7:28 pm, "Jason" <A...@naught.org> wrote:
> "killwhang" <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to n...@netfront.net ---
Give us a break, you know as well us all of us it's all made up and
there is little or no science behind any of it.It's a good money
spinner
for those that work in this area - a gravy train.
The modelss don't match the data and you can see that from the graphs,
explain that!! This is religion, not science.
I can see in another 15 years time when they still don't match people
jumping up and down claiming 'look it's definitely higher".
It reminds me of the people who used to believe in the "ether" or
those that counted the number of angels to go on a pinhead.
Look at the graphs - you're not looking are you, just selectively
cherry picking. It doesn't follow the real meaured data (oh and
remember the fuss to get that data!)
so you make up another cover story. Go pull the wool over some
gullible hippies eyes!
Hardy
> "killwhang" <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Give us a break, you know as well us all of us it's all made up and
there is little or no science behind any of it.It's a good money
spinner
for those that work in this area - a gravy train.
The modelss don't match the data and you can see that from the graphs,
explain that!! This is religion, not science.
I can see in another 15 years time when they still don't match people
jumping up and down claiming 'look it's definitely higher".
It reminds me of the people who used to believe in the "ether" or
those that counted the number of angels to go on a pinhead.
Look at the graphs - you're not looking are you, just selectively
cherry picking. It doesn't follow the real meaured data (oh and
remember the fuss to get that data!)
so you make up another cover story. Go pull the wool over some
gullible hippies eyes!
Hardy
Scotty
Jan 30, 2012, 8:59:35 AM1/30/12
to
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:19:34 -0800, "La N." <nilita20...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Scottie doesn't read the Daily Mail for the lasvicious stories of murder and
>mahem and showbiz gossip. He gets his scientific references from it!
>Scottie, a lot of us love the Mail! Don't stop reading it on Adam's
>account!
>
>- nil
I don't read the DM unless Hardy posts a link because of their obsession
with celeb's cleavage and crotches or clothing malfunctions. I wonder when
will they realize that all woman have boobs and bums, some of them
better... I don't understand why anyone would want to look at them,
especially if you have real ones next to you.
I really sympathize with woman that they have to carry two lumps of fat on
their chests for life even though they only used, functionally, a few
times.
Some men do as well but that's a choice, I heard Larry the Cableman the
other night say that, "he wanted to lose some weight - he just wanted to
get down to a B cup".
I don't go to movies either, the last two were On Golden Pond, Jane Fonda
and CS Lewis' Surprised by Joy, although Google tells me that it was
called Shadowlands (1993), I don't remember that, I do remember William
Wordsworth's poem, "Surprised By Joy - Impatient As The Wind".
I wish I had the wit of a Conway or Griesel but I guess I just live in my
head... but there is nothing better than sailing with a stiff breeze on a
moonlit night with a companion close to you.
Scott
wrote:
>Scottie doesn't read the Daily Mail for the lasvicious stories of murder and
>mahem and showbiz gossip. He gets his scientific references from it!
>Scottie, a lot of us love the Mail! Don't stop reading it on Adam's
>account!
>
>- nil
with celeb's cleavage and crotches or clothing malfunctions. I wonder when
will they realize that all woman have boobs and bums, some of them
better... I don't understand why anyone would want to look at them,
especially if you have real ones next to you.
I really sympathize with woman that they have to carry two lumps of fat on
their chests for life even though they only used, functionally, a few
times.
Some men do as well but that's a choice, I heard Larry the Cableman the
other night say that, "he wanted to lose some weight - he just wanted to
get down to a B cup".
I don't go to movies either, the last two were On Golden Pond, Jane Fonda
and CS Lewis' Surprised by Joy, although Google tells me that it was
called Shadowlands (1993), I don't remember that, I do remember William
Wordsworth's poem, "Surprised By Joy - Impatient As The Wind".
I wish I had the wit of a Conway or Griesel but I guess I just live in my
head... but there is nothing better than sailing with a stiff breeze on a
moonlit night with a companion close to you.
Scott
Jason
Jan 30, 2012, 11:53:16 AM1/30/12
to
news:32782afd-8a0b-40f0...@g4g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
_________________________________________________________
You've not been paying attention.
I've been saying all along AGW is a hoax to line politicians pockets and
those of their crony friends.
Wholesale theft of American wealth making the "Great Train Robbery" look
like pathetic pikers.
Even if there is a very minor varation, I've said it is not a permanent
"trend" that will send us into a runaway greenhouse effect [RGE]. How you
could not "get" what I was pointing to with the references I cited to actual
geological cyclic indicators that show periodic climactic variations that
clearly did not lead to RGE.
Did you notice how the fanatic doomsayers are dumbing down their claims now?
First it was RGE cause by AGW that would cause all the ice to melt, the
sealevel to rise {say what?}.
Now it's chicken little pussies saying that "OMG we will have STORMS!"
Don't just look at the graphs; look at the geologic record!
I knew all that dope smokin' mixed with Viagra/Cialis in WDC would FUBAR the
gub'mint and sure enough it does.
=];o)
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
You've not been paying attention.
I've been saying all along AGW is a hoax to line politicians pockets and
those of their crony friends.
Wholesale theft of American wealth making the "Great Train Robbery" look
like pathetic pikers.
Even if there is a very minor varation, I've said it is not a permanent
"trend" that will send us into a runaway greenhouse effect [RGE]. How you
could not "get" what I was pointing to with the references I cited to actual
geological cyclic indicators that show periodic climactic variations that
clearly did not lead to RGE.
Did you notice how the fanatic doomsayers are dumbing down their claims now?
First it was RGE cause by AGW that would cause all the ice to melt, the
sealevel to rise {say what?}.
Now it's chicken little pussies saying that "OMG we will have STORMS!"
Don't just look at the graphs; look at the geologic record!
I knew all that dope smokin' mixed with Viagra/Cialis in WDC would FUBAR the
gub'mint and sure enough it does.
=];o)
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
killwhang
Jan 30, 2012, 12:33:02 PM1/30/12
to
Sorry about that - missread your post! Well, agreed!
Hardy
Jason
Jan 30, 2012, 1:05:01 PM1/30/12
to
Sorry about that - missread your post! Well, agreed!
Hardy
******************
Hardy
No worries. Glad the datastream synced.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Scotty
Jan 30, 2012, 5:02:35 PM1/30/12
to
like the ground hog, La Nina stuck it's head out the Pacific and found too
much CO2 and so tucked it's head back in again? You can't be saying that La
Nina is more influential than CO2? Can you? Now we have three choices for
Climate Change, La Nina, Sulphates and CO2 and it seems that CO2 is
losing!!!
>It's a cycle - duh! ie: Nuetral.
their knickers now because there has been no worming for 14 years?
>Nothing has changed you gullible twat.
How long ago was it that Mike MacCracken warned Jones et al that he better
have a backup plan? Oh yes 3 years... And I thought that the science was
settled, wots with the plan B?
ClimateGate email #4195
From: Mike MacCracken [mailto:???@comcast.net]
Sent: 03 January 2009 16:44
To: Phil Jones; Folland, Chris
Cc: John Holdren; Rosina Bierbaum
Subject: Temperatures in 2009
Dear Phil and Chris--
[...]
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of
warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily
explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability--
that explanation is wearing thin.
I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some
checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified
explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will
be all over us--the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc.
And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
Best, Mike MacCracken
Note that Obama's chief science advisor, John Holdren, is copied on this as
is Andrew C. Revkin email...@nytimes.com
The PR machine in action...
Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why
was Jones hoping for warming?
And if the world was still warming in 2009, why did Jones refer to "lack of
warming"?
ClimateGate email #4195
Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till
about 2020.
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent
scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to
conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these
scientists view global warming as a political "cause" rather than a
balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit
to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate
manipulation of facts and data."
Like GISS manipulating the Reykjavik temperatures!!!
Scott
--
"If someone is hiding the work, I will reject the conclusion out of hand. I
can only assume it’s because the work doesn’t support the conclusion."
Message has been deleted
k...@kymhorsell.com
Jan 30, 2012, 6:05:41 PM1/30/12
to
In sci.skeptic Scotty <spsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
Because a 3-sigma outlier like 1998 doesn't come along more than once
a century. If all the deniers don't get in now with their "last year
wasn't as warm as 1998" then they'll miss out.
--
Highly significant:
Pres Obama is not as tall as Soltan Kosen.
...
> Then why didn't the computer models predict it? Why is everyone wetting
> their knickers now because there has been no worming for 14 years?
...
> their knickers now because there has been no worming for 14 years?
Because a 3-sigma outlier like 1998 doesn't come along more than once
a century. If all the deniers don't get in now with their "last year
wasn't as warm as 1998" then they'll miss out.
--
Highly significant:
Pres Obama is not as tall as Soltan Kosen.
k...@kymhorsell.com
Jan 30, 2012, 6:13:05 PM1/30/12
to
In sci.physics meh <y...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
...
> Scientists have what they consider absolute proof that CO2 levels have been
> MUCH higher in the past them they are now, with no corresponding increase
> in the temps.
>
> I have NO idea why THIS increase in CO2 would bring different results.
Sometimes you can get shot in the head and recover -- usually it's
not likely you will recover.
Exceptions do not invalidate an "in general".
--
> In general, if the mean of a set of numbers is increased the variance
> is increased.
[L]et's see this general case.
-- troppo <tr-...@gmail.com>, 26 Oct 2011 09:04 +0000 (UTC)
...
> Scientists have what they consider absolute proof that CO2 levels have been
> MUCH higher in the past them they are now, with no corresponding increase
> in the temps.
>
> I have NO idea why THIS increase in CO2 would bring different results.
Sometimes you can get shot in the head and recover -- usually it's
not likely you will recover.
Exceptions do not invalidate an "in general".
--
> In general, if the mean of a set of numbers is increased the variance
> is increased.
[L]et's see this general case.
-- troppo <tr-...@gmail.com>, 26 Oct 2011 09:04 +0000 (UTC)
Message has been deleted
killwhang
Jan 30, 2012, 7:40:23 PM1/30/12
to
measured data is wrong!
There is something troubling about all this though. Can't anybody
measure temperature any more?
Have we to reply on mathematical models to tell us what the temp is
outside! Can't trust the thermometer can we.
Secondly, if the temp is indeed rising (and I have no bone to pick, I
am only interested in the truth either way), why is the polar ice cap
melting or is that a lie? Why does Nasa show a temp rise when the
IPCC's own data doesn't?? Why does the temp only increase in the
northern hemisphere? This is from New Zealands records which supposed
to have risen nearly 1 degree in 100 years.
Many requests for the raw data and the adjustments made to the data
were made to the head of the NIWA, Dr. Salinger, for years with no
response. But the data for each of the New Zealand stations recently
became available from one of Dr. Salinger's colleagues. Examination
of the data revealed that strong adjustments had been made to the data
to create a strong warming trend.
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked
way down and later readings
artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as
documented below. There is nothing
in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date
Dr Salinger and NIWA have
not revealed why they did this.
One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a
huge 1.3°C, creating strongwarming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no
apparent reason for it.
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2009/12/falsified-new-zealand-land-surface.html
Hardy
Scotty
Jan 30, 2012, 7:42:50 PM1/30/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:13:05 +0000 (UTC), k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
>In sci.physics meh <y...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>...
>> Scientists have what they consider absolute proof that CO2 levels have been
>> MUCH higher in the past them they are now, with no corresponding increase
>> in the temps.
>>
>> I have NO idea why THIS increase in CO2 would bring different results.
>
>Sometimes you can get shot in the head and recover -- usually it's
>not likely you will recover.
>
>Exceptions do not invalidate an "in general".
So are you saying that in general an excess of CO2 will cause warming but
>In sci.physics meh <y...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>...
>> Scientists have what they consider absolute proof that CO2 levels have been
>> MUCH higher in the past them they are now, with no corresponding increase
>> in the temps.
>>
>> I have NO idea why THIS increase in CO2 would bring different results.
>
>Sometimes you can get shot in the head and recover -- usually it's
>not likely you will recover.
>
>Exceptions do not invalidate an "in general".
sometimes not?
killwhang
Jan 30, 2012, 7:42:04 PM1/30/12
to
There is a feedback mechanism which is being ignored in the
mathematical models. (for CO2)
Hardy
Scotty
Jan 30, 2012, 7:56:39 PM1/30/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:40:23 -0800 (PST), killwhang <gyans...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Yep, I've known of the NZ "mystery" for some time but it appears to be
standard proceedure. If there has been no warming then just make the past
cooler as GISS have done to Reykjavik - simple
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/giss-make-the-past-colder-in-reykjavik/
wrote:
standard proceedure. If there has been no warming then just make the past
cooler as GISS have done to Reykjavik - simple
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/giss-make-the-past-colder-in-reykjavik/
k...@kymhorsell.com
Jan 30, 2012, 8:32:58 PM1/30/12
to
In sci.skeptic killwhang <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
understood you are talking about simple scientific model building.
The idea is not to build the most complex model that approximates
the observatiuons, but the simplest. Not only is this Occham's Razor,
but there are good information-theorietic reasons to believe
the simplest models are most likely to be "right".
--
[Statistics doesn't come into physical modeling:]
To publish research in social sciences you need statistics. To do
physical modeling you need advanced calculus including differential equations.
-- Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid>, 22 Jan 2011 13:49 -0800
...
> There is a feedback mechanism which is being ignored in the
> mathematical models. (for CO2)
Until the relevance of the particular mechanism you have in mind is
> mathematical models. (for CO2)
understood you are talking about simple scientific model building.
The idea is not to build the most complex model that approximates
the observatiuons, but the simplest. Not only is this Occham's Razor,
but there are good information-theorietic reasons to believe
the simplest models are most likely to be "right".
--
[Statistics doesn't come into physical modeling:]
To publish research in social sciences you need statistics. To do
physical modeling you need advanced calculus including differential equations.
-- Trawley Trash <tr...@invalid.invalid>, 22 Jan 2011 13:49 -0800
k...@kymhorsell.com
Jan 30, 2012, 8:38:12 PM1/30/12
to
In sci.skeptic Scotty <spsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:13:05 +0000 (UTC), k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
...
>>Exceptions do not invalidate an "in general".
>
> So are you saying that in general an excess of CO2 will cause warming but
> sometimes not?
[As if talking to a child or simpleton:]
>
> So are you saying that in general an excess of CO2 will cause warming but
> sometimes not?
What do you understand "in general, a bullet through the brain will probe
fatal" to mean.
Then generalise and specialise as appropriate.
For extra credit analyse the idea "heavy objects fall to earth when released"
and decide whether or not it is generally true. You will need to find at least
one exception to the rule to pass.
--
[the diff between proving a positive and negative:]
> Naive studies may be evidence of a kind, but really all they can do is
> re-inforce studies already published. If one can fit a regression
> line through some published data and it seems to show a statistically
> significant connection, and it predicts much the same thing as in
> published work, then we have evidence to accept the published work[...]
> OTOH, if [you] get a different answer [you] are [most likely in error].
[...]
You do realise that what you have described is "an appeal to authority" -
the authority in the case being some unnamed journals - and not the
scientific method.
-- Peter Webb <webbf...@optusnet.com.au>, 23 Nov 2010
Jason
Jan 30, 2012, 9:57:31 PM1/30/12
to
"Scotty" <spsc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fpeei7dfatqurccpf...@4ax.com...
rapid urbanization and that people who setup the monitoring stations set
them up near cities... which are heat islands [look it up].
This fact was not only obvious, but it was exposed early on on PBS before
the ALGORE Hoax went viral.
All that "alpha male" training in DC plus free Viagra to the Elites, you
see, caused their criminal side to rise to a higher quantum energy state
[so the joke goes that they were big elitist Pr*cks was merely amplified
beyond their ability to put a towel over it.]
<g>
So now we all have to deal with their BS totalitarianism and bad manners for
a season.
Time to kick them to the curb [throw them under the bus]
If the "establishment is for the candidate" then ya know he's the wrong guy.
It's who they are attacking that they are afraid of: I suggest "Make them
afraid! Make the VERY afraid!" <eg> because the only ones that can restore
the republic are those the elitist establishment types hate.
Jason
Jan 30, 2012, 10:07:19 PM1/30/12
to
<k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in message news:jg7gc9$hlf$1...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
Try telling that to Benoit Mandelbrot and Edward Lorenz.
Their work tells us that simple models simply do not work.
That even if you know the parameters, the system is sensitive to initial
conditions [that we do not know].
Given the track record of weather forecasting and
the fact they are not very good at predictions beyond 3 days;
it stands as testament that the Algorian AGW fanatics are
not only bad at science and scientific modeling;
but that they are using this hoax in their role of snake oil salesman
pulling the biggest rip-off heist in history.
Surfer
Jan 30, 2012, 11:14:14 PM1/30/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:04:03 +0200, Scotty <spsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"How GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s Temperatures"
>http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/how-giss-has-totally-corrupted-reykjaviks-temperatures/
>
>NOAA Don’t Believe The Iceland Met Office
>http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/noaa-dont-believe-the-iceland-met-office/
>http://pindanpost.com/2012/01/25/adulterating-the-data-to-fix-the-agenda/
>
>"GISS Make The Past Colder In Reykjavik"
>http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/giss-make-the-past-colder-in-reykjavik/
>
>"I have contacted the Iceland Met Office to get their view on the GHCN
>adjustments. Their reply could not be clearer :-
>
>a) They were not aware these adjustments were being made.
>
>b) They do not know why they have been made, but are asking!
>
>c) They do not accept the "corrections" and have no intention of amending
>their own records."
>
>From the Iceland met office:
>http://en.vedur.is/climatology/clim/nr/1213
>
>What can one say? Except that these clowns are dragging all Science into
>disrepute.
>
I looked at the Iceland met office web page at the above link. But it
doesn't provide a graph of annual temperatures for Reykjavik.
So the claim that "GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s
Temperatures" is probably a hoax.
>
>"How GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s Temperatures"
>http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/how-giss-has-totally-corrupted-reykjaviks-temperatures/
>
>NOAA Don’t Believe The Iceland Met Office
>http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/noaa-dont-believe-the-iceland-met-office/
>http://pindanpost.com/2012/01/25/adulterating-the-data-to-fix-the-agenda/
>
>"GISS Make The Past Colder In Reykjavik"
>http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/giss-make-the-past-colder-in-reykjavik/
>
>"I have contacted the Iceland Met Office to get their view on the GHCN
>adjustments. Their reply could not be clearer :-
>
>a) They were not aware these adjustments were being made.
>
>b) They do not know why they have been made, but are asking!
>
>c) They do not accept the "corrections" and have no intention of amending
>their own records."
>
>From the Iceland met office:
>http://en.vedur.is/climatology/clim/nr/1213
>
>What can one say? Except that these clowns are dragging all Science into
>disrepute.
>
I looked at the Iceland met office web page at the above link. But it
doesn't provide a graph of annual temperatures for Reykjavik.
So the claim that "GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s
Temperatures" is probably a hoax.
Jason
Jan 30, 2012, 11:24:15 PM1/30/12
to
<k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in message news:jg7gm3$9bo$1...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
holding garlic.]
Your generalization is an oversimplification.
1) there is not enough CO2 to elicit the type of warming you invoke.
Geologic records indicate orders of magnetude higher concentrations in the
past and that was before humans.
2) CO2 has an thermal absorption threshold being ignored in existing models,
but that flaw has been pointed out recently.
3) The movement of and installation of new recording stations in urban city
heat islands has biased the data.
4) CO2 is not in hige enough concentration to cause atmospheric turnover as
you imply.
5) Long wave cycles are not considered in existing simple minded models.
6) Cherry picking of data to support AGW is not scientific
7) As your post indicates you are being condescending to the poster, that
makes you a consumate ASS and an AGW Zombie. Go climb back under your U.N.
rock, you socialist poltroon, anti-scientific snake-oil charlatan!
You can publish your dirty comic book science elsewhere, it is not going to
be bought here.
--
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in
society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system
that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
tj Frazir
Jan 30, 2012, 11:26:46 PM1/30/12
to
This sundial is backwards then fixed with stones after the planet fliped
from 30 deg 76 deg flip to its oposit 30 deg tilt.
The pole sat in the slot standing at the center of te curve . The pole
shadow was to fall inside the curve on top of the temple.
after the planet fliped all the sundials are backwards .
rome has one backwards.
newgrange-above.jpg
Address:http://www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com/miscimages/newgrange-above.jpg
Changed:8:54 PM on Sunday, August 5, 2007
THINK ...why is this sundial ass backwards .
The sun is on its back side .
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
from 30 deg 76 deg flip to its oposit 30 deg tilt.
The pole sat in the slot standing at the center of te curve . The pole
shadow was to fall inside the curve on top of the temple.
after the planet fliped all the sundials are backwards .
rome has one backwards.
newgrange-above.jpg
Address:http://www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com/miscimages/newgrange-above.jpg
Changed:8:54 PM on Sunday, August 5, 2007
THINK ...why is this sundial ass backwards .
The sun is on its back side .
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
killwhang
Jan 31, 2012, 12:32:37 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 2:32 pm, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
fiddle the readings to match the "predictions'!
Let's put it this way, if I did this in my research it would be
serious miss-conduct and I would be shamed!
Hardy
> In sci.skeptic killwhang <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > There is a feedback mechanism which is being ignored in the
> > mathematical models. (for CO2)
>
> Until the relevance of the particular mechanism you have in mind is
> understood you are talking about simple scientific model building.
>
> The idea is not to build the most complex model that approximates
> the observatiuons, but the simplest. Not only is this Occham's Razor,
> but there are good information-theorietic reasons to believe
> the simplest models are most likely to be "right".
>
> --
Fair enough, but it appears that they are not, otherwise why do they
> ...
>
> > There is a feedback mechanism which is being ignored in the
> > mathematical models. (for CO2)
>
> Until the relevance of the particular mechanism you have in mind is
> understood you are talking about simple scientific model building.
>
> The idea is not to build the most complex model that approximates
> the observatiuons, but the simplest. Not only is this Occham's Razor,
> but there are good information-theorietic reasons to believe
> the simplest models are most likely to be "right".
>
> --
fiddle the readings to match the "predictions'!
Let's put it this way, if I did this in my research it would be
serious miss-conduct and I would be shamed!
Hardy
killwhang
Jan 31, 2012, 12:35:19 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 5:14 pm, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
> >http://pindanpost.com/2012/01/25/adulterating-the-data-to-fix-the-age...
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:04:03 +0200, Scotty <spsco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"How GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s Temperatures"
> >http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/how-giss-has-...
>
> >"How GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s Temperatures"
>
> >NOAA Don’t Believe The Iceland Met Office
> >http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/noaa-dont-bel...
> >NOAA Don’t Believe The Iceland Met Office
> >http://pindanpost.com/2012/01/25/adulterating-the-data-to-fix-the-age...
>
> >"GISS Make The Past Colder In Reykjavik"
> >http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/giss-make-the...
> >"GISS Make The Past Colder In Reykjavik"
>
> >"I have contacted the Iceland Met Office to get their view on the GHCN
> >adjustments. Their reply could not be clearer :-
>
> >a) They were not aware these adjustments were being made.
>
> >b) They do not know why they have been made, but are asking!
>
> >c) They do not accept the "corrections" and have no intention of amending
> >their own records."
>
> >From the Iceland met office:
> >http://en.vedur.is/climatology/clim/nr/1213
>
> >What can one say? Except that these clowns are dragging all Science into
> >disrepute.
>
> I looked at the Iceland met office web page at the above link. But it
> doesn't provide a graph of annual temperatures for Reykjavik.
>
> So the claim that "GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s
> Temperatures" is probably a hoax.
Well the NZ one isn't!
> >"I have contacted the Iceland Met Office to get their view on the GHCN
> >adjustments. Their reply could not be clearer :-
>
> >a) They were not aware these adjustments were being made.
>
> >b) They do not know why they have been made, but are asking!
>
> >c) They do not accept the "corrections" and have no intention of amending
> >their own records."
>
> >From the Iceland met office:
> >http://en.vedur.is/climatology/clim/nr/1213
>
> >What can one say? Except that these clowns are dragging all Science into
> >disrepute.
>
> I looked at the Iceland met office web page at the above link. But it
> doesn't provide a graph of annual temperatures for Reykjavik.
>
> So the claim that "GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s
> Temperatures" is probably a hoax.
killwhang
Jan 31, 2012, 12:38:31 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 5:24 pm, "Jason" <A...@naught.org> wrote:
> <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in messagenews:jg7gm3$9bo$1...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
> > -- Peter Webb <webbfam...@optusnet.com.au>, 23 Nov 2010
There's going to be hell to pay at some point when all those chickens
come home to roost.
Scientific fraud should be condemned. I see this being one of the
major Scientific scandals of the first part of this century.
A bit like N-Rays was in the past century only far worse. It takes the
whole of Science and gives it a bad name.
Hardy
> <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in messagenews:jg7gm3$9bo$1...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
>
> [as if playing a recording to a Zombie while holding a mirror to them and
> holding garlic.]
> Your generalization is an oversimplification.
> 1) there is not enough CO2 to elicit the type of warming you invoke.
> Geologic records indicate orders of magnetude higher concentrations in the
> past and that was before humans.
> 2) CO2 has an thermal absorption threshold being ignored in existing models,
> but that flaw has been pointed out recently.
> 3) The movement of and installation of new recording stations in urban city
> heat islands has biased the data.
> 4) CO2 is not in hige enough concentration to cause atmospheric turnover as
> you imply.
> 5) Long wave cycles are not considered in existing simple minded models.
> 6) Cherry picking of data to support AGW is not scientific
> 7) As your post indicates you are being condescending to the poster, that
> makes you a consumate ASS and an AGW Zombie. Go climb back under your U.N.
> rock, you socialist poltroon, anti-scientific snake-oil charlatan!
> You can publish your dirty comic book science elsewhere, it is not going to
> be bought here.
>
> --
> "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in
> society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system
> that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
>
> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to n...@netfront.net ---
> [as if playing a recording to a Zombie while holding a mirror to them and
> holding garlic.]
> Your generalization is an oversimplification.
> 1) there is not enough CO2 to elicit the type of warming you invoke.
> Geologic records indicate orders of magnetude higher concentrations in the
> past and that was before humans.
> 2) CO2 has an thermal absorption threshold being ignored in existing models,
> but that flaw has been pointed out recently.
> 3) The movement of and installation of new recording stations in urban city
> heat islands has biased the data.
> 4) CO2 is not in hige enough concentration to cause atmospheric turnover as
> you imply.
> 5) Long wave cycles are not considered in existing simple minded models.
> 6) Cherry picking of data to support AGW is not scientific
> 7) As your post indicates you are being condescending to the poster, that
> makes you a consumate ASS and an AGW Zombie. Go climb back under your U.N.
> rock, you socialist poltroon, anti-scientific snake-oil charlatan!
> You can publish your dirty comic book science elsewhere, it is not going to
> be bought here.
>
> --
> "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in
> society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system
> that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
>
There's going to be hell to pay at some point when all those chickens
come home to roost.
Scientific fraud should be condemned. I see this being one of the
major Scientific scandals of the first part of this century.
A bit like N-Rays was in the past century only far worse. It takes the
whole of Science and gives it a bad name.
Hardy
conway caine
Jan 31, 2012, 10:27:22 AM1/31/12
to
"killwhang" wrote in message
news:9e435210-8ecc-403e...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
kooks are again pounding the drums about Global Warming.
I fail to understand how driving my smoke belching auld auto about the
streets of Charlotte has caused the jet stream to flee north to Canada.
Jason
Jan 31, 2012, 11:14:24 AM1/31/12
to
{prior conversation completed, snipped for brevity}
There's going to be hell to pay at some point when all those chickens
come home to roost.
Scientific fraud should be condemned. I see this being one of the
major Scientific scandals of the first part of this century.
A bit like N-Rays was in the past century only far worse. It takes the
whole of Science and gives it a bad name.
Hardy
_____________________________________________________
It would appear that "New Age" movement keeps moving the goal posts huh?
That was a fun reference I was not aware of: 1903-1920 & Blondlot's "
N-Ray", or "Nancy-rays" detector...
=]:o) I'll pass on the obvious joke that picture invokes. ;)
In Parallel: I was thinking this is similar to the "Phlogiston" and the
"Caloric" hoaxes.
Though I've not read about the public reaction to these theories much,
I suspect that this current hoax is much more hideous and damaging to the
average person
due to the tight political and news linkages resulting in the misapplication
of power and the elitist moral<sic> justification of passing repressive laws
based on the hoaxes.
Replying to the final statement: Yes, these hoaxes bias those who do not
understand science, particularly when those with mal-intent publicly and
loudly paint the whole of human endeavor with broad brush strokes...
appealing to those without the time or resources to discern the truth, those
tied too closely to a "KISS" philosophy of life and too those who are just
bitter entitlement minded.
That's why it is always important to ask when these things rise to public
attention: "who profits?" and "follow the money"; as well as "why the hell
are you bothering me?" to those making new demands. There will be hell to
pay for those who have stolen years of our lives, but we will never recover
the time wasted. That is the goal for one fanatical religious sect... to
strip civilized society of the chain of learning that older experienced
workers offered to younger generations. Beyond the fanatical sect there is
also the well known Euro based political sect that has adopted the same
strategies to forward their causes. A conflagration of rich malefactors are
manipulating our society right now. Money used for bad purpose is very
damaging; recent Florida events are example of that.
J
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
There's going to be hell to pay at some point when all those chickens
come home to roost.
Scientific fraud should be condemned. I see this being one of the
major Scientific scandals of the first part of this century.
A bit like N-Rays was in the past century only far worse. It takes the
whole of Science and gives it a bad name.
Hardy
It would appear that "New Age" movement keeps moving the goal posts huh?
That was a fun reference I was not aware of: 1903-1920 & Blondlot's "
N-Ray", or "Nancy-rays" detector...
=]:o) I'll pass on the obvious joke that picture invokes. ;)
In Parallel: I was thinking this is similar to the "Phlogiston" and the
"Caloric" hoaxes.
Though I've not read about the public reaction to these theories much,
I suspect that this current hoax is much more hideous and damaging to the
average person
due to the tight political and news linkages resulting in the misapplication
of power and the elitist moral<sic> justification of passing repressive laws
based on the hoaxes.
Replying to the final statement: Yes, these hoaxes bias those who do not
understand science, particularly when those with mal-intent publicly and
loudly paint the whole of human endeavor with broad brush strokes...
appealing to those without the time or resources to discern the truth, those
tied too closely to a "KISS" philosophy of life and too those who are just
bitter entitlement minded.
That's why it is always important to ask when these things rise to public
attention: "who profits?" and "follow the money"; as well as "why the hell
are you bothering me?" to those making new demands. There will be hell to
pay for those who have stolen years of our lives, but we will never recover
the time wasted. That is the goal for one fanatical religious sect... to
strip civilized society of the chain of learning that older experienced
workers offered to younger generations. Beyond the fanatical sect there is
also the well known Euro based political sect that has adopted the same
strategies to forward their causes. A conflagration of rich malefactors are
manipulating our society right now. Money used for bad purpose is very
damaging; recent Florida events are example of that.
J
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
k...@kymhorsell.com
Jan 31, 2012, 1:13:18 PM1/31/12
to
In sci.skeptic conway caine <conwa...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> "killwhang" wrote in message
> news:9e435210-8ecc-403e...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jan 31, 11:02 am, Scotty <spsco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:39:48 -0800 (PST), Adam Whyte-Settlar
>> <grawill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked
> way down and later readings
> artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as
> documented below. There is nothing
....
>
>
> "killwhang" wrote in message
> news:9e435210-8ecc-403e...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jan 31, 11:02 am, Scotty <spsco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:39:48 -0800 (PST), Adam Whyte-Settlar
>> <grawill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked
> way down and later readings
> artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as
> documented below. There is nothing
Yar. The "kooks" are not the ones explaining things with global
conspiracies involving farmers keeping bogus family farm records
for the past 100+ years.
[The Berkeley Group found] a global warming trend that is very similar
to that previously reported by the other groups. I believe that some of the
most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought.
-- Richard Muller, Tue, Oct 11, 2011
When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate
issues, and we didn't know what we'd find.
Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior
groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very
careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some
skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection,
homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real. Perhaps
our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.
-- Richard Muller, Oct 22, 2011
The group estimates that over the past 50 y the land surface warmed by
0.911°C: a mere 2% less than NOAA's estimate.
-- Berkeley Temperature Group Press Release, Oct 27th 2011
I know that I'll be criticized for my position on this, since I said
back in March that I would accept their findings whatever they were,
but that was when I expected them to do science per the scientific process.
-- Anothony Watts, denialist blogger, 24 Oct 2011
Scotty
Jan 31, 2012, 5:52:39 PM1/31/12
to
"...we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy... One
has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is
environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental
policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3, Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, November 13, 2010
interview
(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy
separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in
Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the
largest economic conferences since the Second World War.
Monoglots needn't bother"
http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/politik/schweiz/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu_1.8373227.html
Scott.
Scotty
Jan 31, 2012, 7:38:04 PM1/31/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:24:15 -0700, "Jason" <Ar...@naught.org> wrote:
>>>>Exceptions do not invalidate an "in general".
>>>
>>> So are you saying that in general an excess of CO2 will cause warming but
>>> sometimes not?
>>
>> [As if talking to a child or simpleton:]
>>
>> What do you understand "in general, a bullet through the brain will probe
>> fatal" to mean.
>>
>> Then generalise and specialise as appropriate.
>>
>> For extra credit analyse the idea "heavy objects fall to earth when
>> released"
>> and decide whether or not it is generally true. You will need to find at
>> least one exception to the rule to pass.
How about 15 exceptions? There has been no statistically significant
>>>>Exceptions do not invalidate an "in general".
>>>
>>> So are you saying that in general an excess of CO2 will cause warming but
>>> sometimes not?
>>
>> [As if talking to a child or simpleton:]
>>
>> What do you understand "in general, a bullet through the brain will probe
>> fatal" to mean.
>>
>> Then generalise and specialise as appropriate.
>>
>> For extra credit analyse the idea "heavy objects fall to earth when
>> released"
>> and decide whether or not it is generally true. You will need to find at
>> least one exception to the rule to pass.
warming for the past 15 years even though we have pumping record amounts of
CO2 into the atmosphere every year for the last 15 years..
Scott
--
"The output of a mathematical operation can’t have more significant digits
than the smallest number of significant digits in any of the inputs,"
Scotty
Jan 31, 2012, 7:58:54 PM1/31/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:32:37 -0800 (PST), killwhang <gyans...@gmail.com>
wrote:
For the Ozzies...
Alarmist propaganda outlets such as the ABC were clearly disappointed by
2011 and were forced to resort to decadal temperatures rather than
individual years to provide it with its headlines:
"Last decade equals warmest on record: UN", well duh!
The article then goes on to say:
"2011 ranks as the 10th warmest year since 1850, when accurate measurements
began"
That may be so in a global sense, but if the ABC took a more local
perspective, in Australia, 2011 was below the 1961-1990 average.
In fact, 2011 came in at -0.13C. Of course that would not provide the
breathtaking headlines like the ABC used in 2010: "2010 the hottest year on
record"
A headline like, "2011 was the 52nd coldest year on record in Australia, or
if your glass is half empty, only the 51st warmest" doesn’t quite have the
same ring, does it?
In fact, in the complete 102 year record kept by the Bureau, last year
(and, by the way, 2001 as well) is slap dash in the middle.
It is interesting to note that there are 12 years prior to 1960 which were
warmer than 2011. These warm years were;
[...]
It is interesting to note that four of these warmer years occurred between
1912 and 1919. This is surprising since despite this last decade being the
warmest ever, two of its years (2011 and 2001) were colder than it was
during World War 1
This is particularly telling when considering that CO2 concentrations were
a mere 301 ppm in 1914 as opposed to 392 ppm in 2011
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/2011-was-51st-warmest-year-in-australia/
Scott
wrote:
Alarmist propaganda outlets such as the ABC were clearly disappointed by
2011 and were forced to resort to decadal temperatures rather than
individual years to provide it with its headlines:
"Last decade equals warmest on record: UN", well duh!
The article then goes on to say:
"2011 ranks as the 10th warmest year since 1850, when accurate measurements
began"
That may be so in a global sense, but if the ABC took a more local
perspective, in Australia, 2011 was below the 1961-1990 average.
In fact, 2011 came in at -0.13C. Of course that would not provide the
breathtaking headlines like the ABC used in 2010: "2010 the hottest year on
record"
A headline like, "2011 was the 52nd coldest year on record in Australia, or
if your glass is half empty, only the 51st warmest" doesn’t quite have the
same ring, does it?
In fact, in the complete 102 year record kept by the Bureau, last year
(and, by the way, 2001 as well) is slap dash in the middle.
It is interesting to note that there are 12 years prior to 1960 which were
warmer than 2011. These warm years were;
[...]
It is interesting to note that four of these warmer years occurred between
1912 and 1919. This is surprising since despite this last decade being the
warmest ever, two of its years (2011 and 2001) were colder than it was
during World War 1
This is particularly telling when considering that CO2 concentrations were
a mere 301 ppm in 1914 as opposed to 392 ppm in 2011
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/2011-was-51st-warmest-year-in-australia/
Scott
Scotty
Jan 31, 2012, 8:06:22 PM1/31/12
to
New Element Discovered
The CSIRO announced the discovery of a perverse, perplexing atom
The new element is Governmentium (Gv). It has one neutron, 25 assistant
neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it
an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are
surrounded by vast quantities of lefton-like particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons or protons, it is inert. However, it
can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into
contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction normally
taking less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 3-6 years. It does not decay but
instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant
neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each
reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe
that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical
concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical
morass.
When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element
that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as
many peons but twice as many morons. All of the money is consumed in the
exchange, and no other byproducts are produced.
Scott
The CSIRO announced the discovery of a perverse, perplexing atom
The new element is Governmentium (Gv). It has one neutron, 25 assistant
neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it
an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are
surrounded by vast quantities of lefton-like particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons or protons, it is inert. However, it
can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into
contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction normally
taking less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 3-6 years. It does not decay but
instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant
neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each
reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe
that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical
concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical
morass.
When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element
that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as
many peons but twice as many morons. All of the money is consumed in the
exchange, and no other byproducts are produced.
Scott
Sam Wormley
Jan 31, 2012, 8:15:38 PM1/31/12
to
On 1/31/12 6:38 PM, Scotty wrote:
> There has been no statistically significant
> warming for the past 15 years even though we have pumping record amounts of
> CO2 into the atmosphere every year for the last 15 years..
>
> Scott
Be patience--things will heat up, and you won't feel it was
> There has been no statistically significant
> warming for the past 15 years even though we have pumping record amounts of
> CO2 into the atmosphere every year for the last 15 years..
>
> Scott
all a hoax.
> http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/1/6/9/7/0/5/1981cfobs-46485264070.jpeg
k...@kymhorsell.com
Jan 31, 2012, 8:20:00 PM1/31/12
to
In sci.skeptic Scotty <spsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:24:15 -0700, "Jason" <Ar...@naught.org> wrote:
...
> How about 15 exceptions? There has been no statistically significant
> warming for the past 15 years even though we have pumping record amounts of
> CO2 into the atmosphere every year for the last 15 years..
Only a statistics illiterate refers to "significance" when they are
> warming for the past 15 years even though we have pumping record amounts of
> CO2 into the atmosphere every year for the last 15 years..
simply comparing each year to 1998 -- a 3 sigma outlier.
But please continue with your meandering confuscations; the historians will
eventually love it.
--
The group estimates that over the past 50 y the land surface warmed by
0.911°C: a mere 2% less than NOAA's estimate.
-- Berkeley Temperature Group Press Release, Oct 27th 2011
The Berkeley Earth agreement with the prior analysis surprised us,
0.911°C: a mere 2% less than NOAA's estimate.
-- Berkeley Temperature Group Press Release, Oct 27th 2011
since our preliminary results don't yet address many of the known
biases. When they do, it is possible that the corrections could bring
our agreement into disagreement.
-- Richard Muller, prior to House hearings, 31 Mar 2011
Peter Webb
Jan 31, 2012, 8:42:41 PM1/31/12
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kLidnR6cS-unD7XS...@mchsi.com...
> On 1/31/12 6:38 PM, Scotty wrote:
>> There has been no statistically significant
>> warming for the past 15 years even though we have pumping record amounts
>> of
>> CO2 into the atmosphere every year for the last 15 years..
>>
>> Scott
>
> Be patience--things will heat up, and you won't feel it was
> all a hoax.
Says the astrologer to the client who complains that none of the predictions
>> There has been no statistically significant
>> warming for the past 15 years even though we have pumping record amounts
>> of
>> CO2 into the atmosphere every year for the last 15 years..
>>
>> Scott
>
> Be patience--things will heat up, and you won't feel it was
> all a hoax.
came true.
>> http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/1/6/9/7/0/5/1981cfobs-46485264070.jpeg
>
Of course, your faith is touching. But misplaced if you want climate
"science" to be considered as a science rather than as a religion.
Peter Webb
Jan 31, 2012, 8:54:53 PM1/31/12
to
<k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in message news:jga400$8q7$1...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
> In sci.skeptic Scotty <spsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:24:15 -0700, "Jason" <Ar...@naught.org> wrote:
> ...
>> How about 15 exceptions? There has been no statistically significant
>> warming for the past 15 years even though we have pumping record amounts
>> of
>> CO2 into the atmosphere every year for the last 15 years..
>
>
> Only a statistics illiterate refers to "significance" when they are
> simply comparing each year to 1998 -- a 3 sigma outlier.
>
What is the statement "1998 was a 3 sigma outlier" supposed to mean,
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:24:15 -0700, "Jason" <Ar...@naught.org> wrote:
> ...
>> How about 15 exceptions? There has been no statistically significant
>> warming for the past 15 years even though we have pumping record amounts
>> of
>> CO2 into the atmosphere every year for the last 15 years..
>
>
> Only a statistics illiterate refers to "significance" when they are
> simply comparing each year to 1998 -- a 3 sigma outlier.
>
exactly?
We have now had four years in the last 13 with almost exactly the same
average global temperature as 1998. That means these temperatures now occur
about 1/3rd of the time. That is not a "3 sigma oulier"; indeed, its not an
outlier at all. It is absolutely typical of the climate of the last 13
years, which has basically plateaued at 1998 levels.
Perhaps you could provide the calculations which led you to the conclusion
that the temperatures in 1998 were a "3 sigma outlier" ? How about
temperatures in 2005, 2008 and 2010, were these also all "3 sigma outliers"
?
> But please continue with your meandering confuscations; the historians
> will
> eventually love it.
>
you calculated this; common sense would immediately indicate that this is
complete bullshit. Please, don't bother dumbing it down, despite your
implication of the contrary, I am far from being a "statistics illiterate".
Sam Wormley
Jan 31, 2012, 9:13:38 PM1/31/12
to
On 1/31/12 7:54 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
> What is the statement "1998 was a 3 sigma outlier" supposed to mean,
> exactly?
I feel sorry for you, Peter, not understanding this!
> What is the statement "1998 was a 3 sigma outlier" supposed to mean,
> exactly?
In statistics, an outlier is an observation that is
numerically distant from the rest of the data.
> Grubbs defined an outlier as:
>
> An outlying observation, or outlier, is one that appears to deviate markedly from other members of the sample in which it occurs.
>
The global temperature in 1998 was such as outlier, as
is accounted for the the pattern of the southern oscillation
index (la nina) condition at the time.
Peter Webb
Jan 31, 2012, 9:53:58 PM1/31/12
to
news:Rs6dnVikFftPArXS...@mchsi.com...
the sample in which it occurs. In fact several years since then have
experienced virtually identical temperatures (eg 2005).
So by this definition, 1998 was not an outlier at all.
> as
> is accounted for the the pattern of the southern oscillation
> index (la nina) condition at the time.
>
You say above "I feel sorry for you, Peter, not understanding this!".
But then you didn't bother explaining it.
Do you understand it?
If so, could you answer my question. How do you Believers calculate that
1998 was a "3 sigma outlier" ? Well?
> On 1/31/12 7:54 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>> What is the statement "1998 was a 3 sigma outlier" supposed to mean,
>> exactly?
>
> I feel sorry for you, Peter, not understanding this!
> In statistics, an outlier is an observation that is
> numerically distant from the rest of the data.
>
>> Grubbs defined an outlier as:
>>
>> An outlying observation, or outlier, is one that appears to deviate
>> markedly from other members of the sample in which it occurs.
>>
>
> The global temperature in 1998 was such as outlier,
No. The temperature in 1998 does not deviate markedly from other members of
>> What is the statement "1998 was a 3 sigma outlier" supposed to mean,
>> exactly?
>
> I feel sorry for you, Peter, not understanding this!
> In statistics, an outlier is an observation that is
> numerically distant from the rest of the data.
>
>> Grubbs defined an outlier as:
>>
>> An outlying observation, or outlier, is one that appears to deviate
>> markedly from other members of the sample in which it occurs.
>>
>
> The global temperature in 1998 was such as outlier,
the sample in which it occurs. In fact several years since then have
experienced virtually identical temperatures (eg 2005).
So by this definition, 1998 was not an outlier at all.
> as
> is accounted for the the pattern of the southern oscillation
> index (la nina) condition at the time.
>
But then you didn't bother explaining it.
Do you understand it?
If so, could you answer my question. How do you Believers calculate that
1998 was a "3 sigma outlier" ? Well?
Sam Wormley
Jan 31, 2012, 10:07:03 PM1/31/12
to
>> The global temperature in 1998 was such as outlier,
>
> No. The temperature in 1998 does not deviate markedly from other members
> of the sample in which it occurs. In fact several years since then have
> experienced virtually identical temperatures (eg 2005).
>
> So by this definition, 1998 was not an outlier at all.
>
The mathematics and statistics of the last hundred or more
>
> No. The temperature in 1998 does not deviate markedly from other members
> of the sample in which it occurs. In fact several years since then have
> experienced virtually identical temperatures (eg 2005).
>
> So by this definition, 1998 was not an outlier at all.
>
years stands corrected by Peter Webb.
Peter Webb
Jan 31, 2012, 10:49:51 PM1/31/12
to
news:5budnVsUePjKMbXS...@mchsi.com...
How so?
Again, the claim was that the temperature in 1998 was a "3 sigma outlier".
Again, on the face of it, this seems completely ridiculous. The temperature
in 1998 was quite similar to the temperature in several other recent years,
so its not an outlier at all, let alone a 3 sigma outlier.
Again, please provide the calculation which justifies what appears to be a
ridiculous assertion, that it is a 3 sigma outlier.
Were 2000, 2005, 2008 and 2010 all also 3 sigma outliers?
Well?
Again, the claim was that the temperature in 1998 was a "3 sigma outlier".
Again, on the face of it, this seems completely ridiculous. The temperature
in 1998 was quite similar to the temperature in several other recent years,
so its not an outlier at all, let alone a 3 sigma outlier.
Again, please provide the calculation which justifies what appears to be a
ridiculous assertion, that it is a 3 sigma outlier.
Were 2000, 2005, 2008 and 2010 all also 3 sigma outliers?
Well?
Polymath
Jan 31, 2012, 11:14:29 PM1/31/12
to
"Peter Webb" <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message
k...@kymhorsell.com
Feb 1, 2012, 2:52:36 AM2/1/12
to
In sci.skeptic Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/31/12 7:54 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>> What is the statement "1998 was a 3 sigma outlier" supposed to mean,
>> exactly?
>
> I feel sorry for you, Peter, not understanding this!
> In statistics, an outlier is an observation that is
> numerically distant from the rest of the data.
...
> On 1/31/12 7:54 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>> What is the statement "1998 was a 3 sigma outlier" supposed to mean,
>> exactly?
>
> I feel sorry for you, Peter, not understanding this!
> In statistics, an outlier is an observation that is
> numerically distant from the rest of the data.
Of course the fact kooks make claims for 6 months involving technical terms
like "significance" and then it turns out they don't know what a sigma
or outlier are is neither here nor there, either. :)
--
[Significance:]
It was cooler last year than it was in 1998 [3 sigma outlier].
-- "Peter Webb" <r.peter...@gmail.com>, 30 Jan 2012 16:29 +1100.
k...@kymhorsell.com
Feb 1, 2012, 2:55:27 AM2/1/12
to
In sci.skeptic Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Just don't ask him to calculate a standard deviation from a regression line.
--
If AGW could predict future climate I would believe it is true.
Currently it does no better than simple extrapolation of current trends.
Which you can do without even measuring atmospheric CO2.
-- "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>, 25 Nov 2010 11:41 +1100
k...@kymhorsell.com
Feb 1, 2012, 3:04:27 AM2/1/12
to
In sci.physics k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
...
is a "typical" member of the set. I guess you need to re-define
"typical" in some suitably kooky way to make that work. LOL.
--
Every other science defines its terms precisely. Not "climate science".
While they all say the earth is warming, I am not aware of a single
definition of this term, nor a scientific test which shows whether the earth
is in fact warming, cooling or staying the same.
-- "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>, 19 May 2011 14:37 +1000
...
> He only heard the word "outlier" yesterday -- now he's an expert.
> Just don't ask him to calculate a standard deviation from a regression line.
... but it's interesting kooks claim the maximum of a set of numbers
> Just don't ask him to calculate a standard deviation from a regression line.
is a "typical" member of the set. I guess you need to re-define
"typical" in some suitably kooky way to make that work. LOL.
--
Every other science defines its terms precisely. Not "climate science".
While they all say the earth is warming, I am not aware of a single
definition of this term, nor a scientific test which shows whether the earth
is in fact warming, cooling or staying the same.
-- "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>, 19 May 2011 14:37 +1000
Peter Webb
Feb 1, 2012, 3:31:33 AM2/1/12
to
<k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in message news:jgar04$eda$1...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
> In sci.skeptic Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/31/12 7:54 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>> What is the statement "1998 was a 3 sigma outlier" supposed to mean,
>>> exactly?
>>
>> I feel sorry for you, Peter, not understanding this!
>> In statistics, an outlier is an observation that is
>> numerically distant from the rest of the data.
> ...
>
> Of course the fact kooks make claims for 6 months involving technical
> terms
> like "significance" and then it turns out they don't know what a sigma
> or outlier are is neither here nor there, either. :)
>
You claimed that the average global temperature in 1998 was a "3 sigma
>> On 1/31/12 7:54 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>> What is the statement "1998 was a 3 sigma outlier" supposed to mean,
>>> exactly?
>>
>> I feel sorry for you, Peter, not understanding this!
>> In statistics, an outlier is an observation that is
>> numerically distant from the rest of the data.
> ...
>
> Of course the fact kooks make claims for 6 months involving technical
> terms
> like "significance" and then it turns out they don't know what a sigma
> or outlier are is neither here nor there, either. :)
>
outlier".
Anybody with the slightest knowledge of statistics would immediately
recognise this is not true.
So it turns out that you are the one who doesn't know what these terms mean.
Unless, of course, you can produce the calculation which shows 1998 to be a
3 sigma outlier??
Perhaps *you* should learn some stats before making obviously ridiculous
statements such as this.
Peter Webb
Feb 1, 2012, 3:33:34 AM2/1/12
to
<k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in message news:jgar5e$eda$2...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
> In sci.skeptic Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/31/12 8:53 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>>
>>> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> The global temperature in 1998 was such as outlier,
>>>
>>> No. The temperature in 1998 does not deviate markedly from other members
>>> of the sample in which it occurs. In fact several years since then have
>>> experienced virtually identical temperatures (eg 2005).
>>>
>>> So by this definition, 1998 was not an outlier at all.
>>>
>>
>> The mathematics and statistics of the last hundred or more
>> years stands corrected by Peter Webb.
>
> He only heard the word "outlier" yesterday -- now he's an expert.
> Just don't ask him to calculate a standard deviation from a regression
> line.
>
So, where's your calculation that shows 1998 global temperature to be a 3
>> On 1/31/12 8:53 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>>
>>> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> The global temperature in 1998 was such as outlier,
>>>
>>> No. The temperature in 1998 does not deviate markedly from other members
>>> of the sample in which it occurs. In fact several years since then have
>>> experienced virtually identical temperatures (eg 2005).
>>>
>>> So by this definition, 1998 was not an outlier at all.
>>>
>>
>> The mathematics and statistics of the last hundred or more
>> years stands corrected by Peter Webb.
>
> He only heard the word "outlier" yesterday -- now he's an expert.
> Just don't ask him to calculate a standard deviation from a regression
> line.
>
sigma outlier?
To anybody with the slightest knowledge of statistics it is a clearly
ridiculous claim.
So, where's the calculation?
Peter Webb
Feb 1, 2012, 3:37:57 AM2/1/12
to
<k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in message news:jgarma$eda$3...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
> In sci.physics k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
> ...
>> He only heard the word "outlier" yesterday -- now he's an expert.
>> Just don't ask him to calculate a standard deviation from a regression
>> line.
>
>
> ... but it's interesting kooks claim the maximum of a set of numbers
> is a "typical" member of the set. I guess you need to re-define
> "typical" in some suitably kooky way to make that work. LOL.
>
I await the evidence for your claim that the average global temperature in
> ...
>> He only heard the word "outlier" yesterday -- now he's an expert.
>> Just don't ask him to calculate a standard deviation from a regression
>> line.
>
>
> ... but it's interesting kooks claim the maximum of a set of numbers
> is a "typical" member of the set. I guess you need to re-define
> "typical" in some suitably kooky way to make that work. LOL.
>
1998 was a 3 sigma outlier.
To anybody with the slightest knowledge of statistics, the claim is on the
face of it completely ridiculous.
So my guess is you lack the slightest knowledge of statistics.
Feel free to prove me wrong by producing your calculation.
> --
> Every other science defines its terms precisely. Not "climate science".
> While they all say the earth is warming, I am not aware of a single
> definition of this term, nor a scientific test which shows whether the
> earth
> is in fact warming, cooling or staying the same.
> -- "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>, 19 May 2011 14:37
> +1000
is warming or cooling at some point in time?
Bob Casanova
Feb 1, 2012, 10:51:50 AM2/1/12
to
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:06:22 +0200, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Scotty <spsc...@gmail.com>:
New one for me; thanks for sharing! ;-)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
in sci.skeptic, posted by Scotty <spsc...@gmail.com>:
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
tj Frazir
Feb 1, 2012, 2:08:57 PM2/1/12
to
HE ha HEEE // phunnii azza phauk
Re: An oldie but goodie
Group: sci.physics Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2012, 8:51am (EST-2) From:
nos...@buzz.off (Bob Casanova)
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
Re: An oldie but goodie
Group: sci.physics Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2012, 8:51am (EST-2) From:
nos...@buzz.off (Bob Casanova)
kym
Feb 1, 2012, 2:32:04 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 7:37 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in messagenews:jgarma$eda$3...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
ROTFL.
So you really did miss out on year 10 math?
You really don't know what "sigma" corresponds with an event you know
is lower than 1 in 100?
--
[Unbiased assessment:]
Peter Webb wrote:
>My proof seems pretty good to me.
But it's not a correct proof.
-- quasi <qu...@null.set>, Wed, 13 Jul 2011 23:19 -0500
> <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in messagenews:jgarma$eda$3...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
> > In sci.physics k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
> > ...
> >> He only heard the word "outlier" yesterday -- now he's an expert.
> >> Just don't ask him to calculate a standard deviation from a regression
> >> line.
>
> > ... but it's interesting kooks claim the maximum of a set of numbers
> > is a "typical" member of the set. I guess you need to re-define
> > "typical" in some suitably kooky way to make that work. LOL.
>
> I await the evidence for your claim that the average global temperature in
> 1998 was a 3 sigmaoutlier.
>
> To anybody with the slightest knowledge of statistics, the claim is on the
> face of it completely ridiculous.
...
> > ...
> >> He only heard the word "outlier" yesterday -- now he's an expert.
> >> Just don't ask him to calculate a standard deviation from a regression
> >> line.
>
> > ... but it's interesting kooks claim the maximum of a set of numbers
> > is a "typical" member of the set. I guess you need to re-define
> > "typical" in some suitably kooky way to make that work. LOL.
>
> I await the evidence for your claim that the average global temperature in
> 1998 was a 3 sigmaoutlier.
>
> To anybody with the slightest knowledge of statistics, the claim is on the
> face of it completely ridiculous.
ROTFL.
So you really did miss out on year 10 math?
You really don't know what "sigma" corresponds with an event you know
is lower than 1 in 100?
--
[Unbiased assessment:]
Peter Webb wrote:
>My proof seems pretty good to me.
But it's not a correct proof.
-- quasi <qu...@null.set>, Wed, 13 Jul 2011 23:19 -0500
kym
Feb 1, 2012, 2:34:08 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 7:37 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in messagenews:jgarma$eda$3...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
> > In sci.physics k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
> > ...
> >> He only heard the word "outlier" yesterday -- now he's an expert.
> >> Just don't ask him to calculate a standard deviation from a regression
> >> line.
>
> > ... but it's interesting kooks claim the maximum of a set of numbers
> > is a "typical" member of the set. I guess you need to re-define
> > "typical" in some suitably kooky way to make that work. LOL.
>
> I await the evidence for your claim that the average global temperature in
> 1998 was a 3 sigmaoutlier.
>
> To anybody with the slightest knowledge of statistics, the claim is on the
> face of it completely ridiculous.
> > ...
> >> He only heard the word "outlier" yesterday -- now he's an expert.
> >> Just don't ask him to calculate a standard deviation from a regression
> >> line.
>
> > ... but it's interesting kooks claim the maximum of a set of numbers
> > is a "typical" member of the set. I guess you need to re-define
> > "typical" in some suitably kooky way to make that work. LOL.
>
> I await the evidence for your claim that the average global temperature in
> 1998 was a 3 sigmaoutlier.
>
> To anybody with the slightest knowledge of statistics, the claim is on the
> face of it completely ridiculous.
Peter Webb
Feb 1, 2012, 7:18:04 PM2/1/12
to
"kym" <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f44ed890-d34c-4dde...@kg1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 1, 7:37 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in messagenews:jgarma$eda$3...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
> > In sci.physics k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
> > ...
> >> He only heard the word "outlier" yesterday -- now he's an expert.
> >> Just don't ask him to calculate a standard deviation from a regression
> >> line.
>
> > ... but it's interesting kooks claim the maximum of a set of numbers
> > is a "typical" member of the set. I guess you need to re-define
> > "typical" in some suitably kooky way to make that work. LOL.
>
> I await the evidence for your claim that the average global temperature in
> 1998 was a 3 sigmaoutlier.
>
> To anybody with the slightest knowledge of statistics, the claim is on the
> face of it completely ridiculous.
...
ROTFL.
So you really did miss out on year 10 math?
______________________________
> <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in messagenews:jgarma$eda$3...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
> > In sci.physics k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
> > ...
> >> He only heard the word "outlier" yesterday -- now he's an expert.
> >> Just don't ask him to calculate a standard deviation from a regression
> >> line.
>
> > ... but it's interesting kooks claim the maximum of a set of numbers
> > is a "typical" member of the set. I guess you need to re-define
> > "typical" in some suitably kooky way to make that work. LOL.
>
> I await the evidence for your claim that the average global temperature in
> 1998 was a 3 sigmaoutlier.
>
> To anybody with the slightest knowledge of statistics, the claim is on the
> face of it completely ridiculous.
...
ROTFL.
So you really did miss out on year 10 math?
No.
You really don't know what "sigma" corresponds with an event you know
is lower than 1 in 100?
I do know, and its not 3 sigmas.
Are you going to justify your crank claim that the average global
temperature was a 3 sigma outlier?
I have asked you repeatedly, and you keep dodging the question but not
answering it.
There are as I see it 2 possible reasons for this:
1. It wasn't a 3 sigma outlier, and you know this bullshit claim of yours
cannot be justified, or
2. It wasn't a 3 sigma outlier, but you lack the knowledge of statistics to
dtermine this one way or the other.
Peter Webb
Feb 1, 2012, 7:21:04 PM2/1/12
to
news:ad616c0b-eeb1-4180...@ih8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
I still await the evidence for your claim that the average global
temperature in 1998 was a 3 sigma outlier. To anybody with the slightest
knowledge of statistics, this claim is on the face of it completely
ridiculous. Which makes me think you must have no knowledge of statistics.
We shall see. Either you post a calculation, or you dodge the question
(again).
Why do you Believers have to lie?
On Feb 1, 7:37 pm, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in messagenews:jgarma$eda$3...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
> > In sci.physics k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
> > ...
> >> He only heard the word "outlier" yesterday -- now he's an expert.
> >> Just don't ask him to calculate a standard deviation from a regression
> >> line.
>
> > ... but it's interesting kooks claim the maximum of a set of numbers
> > is a "typical" member of the set. I guess you need to re-define
> > "typical" in some suitably kooky way to make that work. LOL.
>
> I await the evidence for your claim that the average global temperature in
> 1998 was a 3 sigmaoutlier.
>
> To anybody with the slightest knowledge of statistics, the claim is on the
> face of it completely ridiculous.
...
ROTFL.
So you really did miss out on year 10 math?
You really don't know what "sigma" corresponds with an event you know
is lower than 1 in 100?
__________________________________________
> <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in messagenews:jgarma$eda$3...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
> > In sci.physics k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
> > ...
> >> He only heard the word "outlier" yesterday -- now he's an expert.
> >> Just don't ask him to calculate a standard deviation from a regression
> >> line.
>
> > ... but it's interesting kooks claim the maximum of a set of numbers
> > is a "typical" member of the set. I guess you need to re-define
> > "typical" in some suitably kooky way to make that work. LOL.
>
> I await the evidence for your claim that the average global temperature in
> 1998 was a 3 sigmaoutlier.
>
> To anybody with the slightest knowledge of statistics, the claim is on the
> face of it completely ridiculous.
...
ROTFL.
So you really did miss out on year 10 math?
You really don't know what "sigma" corresponds with an event you know
is lower than 1 in 100?
I still await the evidence for your claim that the average global
temperature in 1998 was a 3 sigma outlier. To anybody with the slightest
knowledge of statistics, this claim is on the face of it completely
ridiculous. Which makes me think you must have no knowledge of statistics.
We shall see. Either you post a calculation, or you dodge the question
(again).
Why do you Believers have to lie?
Jeffrey Hamilton
Feb 1, 2012, 8:38:31 PM2/1/12
to
conway caine wrote:
> "killwhang" wrote in message
> news:9e435210-8ecc-403e...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jan 31, 11:02 am, Scotty <spsco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:39:48 -0800 (PST), Adam Whyte-Settlar
>> <grawill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked
> way down and later readings
> artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as
> documented below. There is nothing
> in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date
> Dr Salinger and NIWA have
> not revealed why they did this.
>
> ***We are having an exceptionally mild winter this year and the
> climate kooks are again pounding the drums about Global Warming.
> I fail to understand how driving my smoke belching auld auto about the
> streets of Charlotte has caused the jet stream to flee north to
> Canada.
Here in southern Ontario this January is the mildest yet. Much less snow,
more rain, much milder temperatures. This was on tne CBC news tonight, by
the way.
cheers...Jeff
> "killwhang" wrote in message
> news:9e435210-8ecc-403e...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jan 31, 11:02 am, Scotty <spsco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:39:48 -0800 (PST), Adam Whyte-Settlar
>> <grawill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked
> way down and later readings
> artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as
> documented below. There is nothing
> in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date
> Dr Salinger and NIWA have
> not revealed why they did this.
>
> ***We are having an exceptionally mild winter this year and the
> climate kooks are again pounding the drums about Global Warming.
> I fail to understand how driving my smoke belching auld auto about the
> streets of Charlotte has caused the jet stream to flee north to
> Canada.
Here in southern Ontario this January is the mildest yet. Much less snow,
more rain, much milder temperatures. This was on tne CBC news tonight, by
the way.
cheers...Jeff
Brad Guth
Feb 2, 2012, 5:09:38 AM2/2/12
to
On Jan 29, 12:45 pm, killwhang <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where are all the "believers"? Have they hid their heads in shame?
>
> (Newsroom America) -- New data released by a noted climate research
> institute last week indicated that the earth has not warmed in more
> than a decade, findings that are sure to challenge the global warming
> mentality for years held by a number of scientists.
>
> The data, released with little fanfare by the University of East
> Anglia Climatic Research Unit in London, shows that the earth has not
> warmed in at least 15 years. The university's conclusion was based on
> readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations.
>
> In fact, the university said, it was possible the earth was moving
> into a cooling cycle, suggesting "that we could even be heading for a
> mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost
> fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century," London's Daily Mail
> newspaper reported.
>
> Leading climate scientists told the paper that the sun, after emitting
> high energy levels throughout the 20th century, may be entering a
> period of "grand minimum" output, which could produce colder summers,
> extreme winters and shorter seasons for growing food.
>
> Other climate scientists made similar predictions.
>
> "World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or
> more," Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate
> Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute, told the paper.
>
> "It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that
> the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to
> demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help," he
> said.
>
> Some scientists said models set forth by in 2000 by the British
> government have not yet run their course and could still wind up
> producing warmer temperatures.
>
> Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, a noted
> U.S. climatologist, said many scientists "are not surprised" by the
> warming pause.
>
> She said it's becoming more evident that factors other than CO2 affect
> global warming and cooling, such as the 60-year water temperature
> cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, the Mail reported.
How many meters is Greenland going to rise by the year 3000?
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
> Where are all the "believers"? Have they hid their heads in shame?
>
> (Newsroom America) -- New data released by a noted climate research
> institute last week indicated that the earth has not warmed in more
> than a decade, findings that are sure to challenge the global warming
> mentality for years held by a number of scientists.
>
> The data, released with little fanfare by the University of East
> Anglia Climatic Research Unit in London, shows that the earth has not
> warmed in at least 15 years. The university's conclusion was based on
> readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations.
>
> In fact, the university said, it was possible the earth was moving
> into a cooling cycle, suggesting "that we could even be heading for a
> mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost
> fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century," London's Daily Mail
> newspaper reported.
>
> Leading climate scientists told the paper that the sun, after emitting
> high energy levels throughout the 20th century, may be entering a
> period of "grand minimum" output, which could produce colder summers,
> extreme winters and shorter seasons for growing food.
>
> Other climate scientists made similar predictions.
>
> "World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or
> more," Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate
> Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute, told the paper.
>
> "It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that
> the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to
> demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help," he
> said.
>
> Some scientists said models set forth by in 2000 by the British
> government have not yet run their course and could still wind up
> producing warmer temperatures.
>
> Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, a noted
> U.S. climatologist, said many scientists "are not surprised" by the
> warming pause.
>
> She said it's becoming more evident that factors other than CO2 affect
> global warming and cooling, such as the 60-year water temperature
> cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, the Mail reported.
How many meters is Greenland going to rise by the year 3000?
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
conway caine
Feb 2, 2012, 9:20:38 AM2/2/12
to
"Jeffrey Hamilton" wrote in message news:jgcpeb$s3t$2...@dont-email.me...
conway caine wrote:
>
> ***We are having an exceptionally mild winter this year and the
> climate kooks are again pounding the drums about Global Warming.
> I fail to understand how driving my smoke belching auld auto about the
> streets of Charlotte has caused the jet stream to flee north to
> Canada.
Here in southern Ontario this January is the mildest yet. Much less snow,
more rain, much milder temperatures. This was on tne CBC news tonight, by
the way.
Jeffrey Hamilton
Feb 2, 2012, 9:49:59 PM2/2/12
to
how difficult it is to snowboard on grass.
cheers....Jeff
conway caine
Feb 3, 2012, 1:49:09 PM2/3/12
to
"Jeffrey Hamilton" wrote in message news:jgfi0n$ifv$1...@dont-email.me...
conway caine wrote:
.
Yep, you've ruined my winter with your gas belching auto. You can't imagine
how difficult it is to snowboard on grass.
Jeffrey Hamilton
Feb 3, 2012, 3:51:17 PM2/3/12
to
cheers....Jeff
Message has been deleted
conway caine
Feb 5, 2012, 5:58:48 PM2/5/12
to
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:ne6pi7pbis5kkjha2...@4ax.com...
Wrong!
Senile dementia is the correct explanation.
--
Jeffrey Hamilton
Feb 5, 2012, 7:06:11 PM2/5/12
to
cheers....Jeff
Message has been deleted
conway caine
Feb 6, 2012, 12:31:52 PM2/6/12
to
"Jeffrey Hamilton" wrote in message news:jgn5hc$t0m$1...@dont-email.me...
conway caine wrote:
> "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
>
>
> That does explain SO much about his posts, though....
>
> Wrong!
> Senile dementia is the correct explanation.
Gee. Something I said, conway ?
**Not art all.
>
> Wrong!
> Senile dementia is the correct explanation.
Gee. Something I said, conway ?
I was poking at Fred..................
;=)
Jeffrey Hamilton
Feb 6, 2012, 4:32:51 PM2/6/12
to
Come to think of it, so will I. :-)
cheers....Jeff
conway caine
Feb 7, 2012, 4:45:44 PM2/7/12
to
"Jeffrey Hamilton" wrote in message news:jgpgtr$kjm$1...@dont-email.me...
lapses.
As witnessed by my not counting the message brackets properly.
As I am full of pain pills......................
Sam Wormley
Feb 7, 2012, 5:20:11 PM2/7/12
to
On 1/29/12 11:29 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
> It was cooler last year than it was in 1998. In fact, the
> temperature has pretty much plateaued since 1998
2010 tied for the second warmest year in the last 100+ years.
the 1998 peak temperature is a statistical outlier, when looking
at all the data.
> It was cooler last year than it was in 1998. In fact, the
> temperature has pretty much plateaued since 1998
2010 tied for the second warmest year in the last 100+ years.
the 1998 peak temperature is a statistical outlier, when looking
at all the data.
Sam Wormley
Feb 7, 2012, 5:41:07 PM2/7/12
to
On 1/31/12 9:49 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
> Again, the claim was that the temperature in 1998 was a "3 sigma outlier".
2010 tied for the second warmest year in the last 100+ years.
the 1998 peak temperature is a statistical outlier, when looking
at all the data.
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
> Again, the claim was that the temperature in 1998 was a "3 sigma outlier".
2010 tied for the second warmest year in the last 100+ years.
the 1998 peak temperature is a statistical outlier, when looking
at all the data.
Peter Webb
Feb 7, 2012, 8:14:34 PM2/7/12
to
news:C8CdneTqaqwGPqzS...@mchsi.com...
> the 1998 peak temperature is a statistical outlier, when looking
> at all the data.
>
No its not. The global temperature in 1998 was very similar to that in 2005
and 2010, amongst other years. If you want to remove 1998 as a "statistical
outlier", then you will also have to remove most of the years 1998 to 2011
as "statistical outliers".
Perhaps if you you gave te calculations which showed that 1998 was a
statistical outlier and had to be removed, but the almost identical
temperatures in 2005 and 2010 are not statistical outliers and don't have to
be removed ...
Over to you.
>
>
> On 1/29/12 11:29 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>> It was cooler last year than it was in 1998. In fact, the
>> temperature has pretty much plateaued since 1998
>
> 2010 tied for the second warmest year in the last 100+ years.
Yes, 2010 is part of the plateau. Well done.
>> It was cooler last year than it was in 1998. In fact, the
>> temperature has pretty much plateaued since 1998
>
> 2010 tied for the second warmest year in the last 100+ years.
> the 1998 peak temperature is a statistical outlier, when looking
> at all the data.
>
and 2010, amongst other years. If you want to remove 1998 as a "statistical
outlier", then you will also have to remove most of the years 1998 to 2011
as "statistical outliers".
Perhaps if you you gave te calculations which showed that 1998 was a
statistical outlier and had to be removed, but the almost identical
temperatures in 2005 and 2010 are not statistical outliers and don't have to
be removed ...
Over to you.
>
>
Peter Webb
Feb 7, 2012, 8:18:11 PM2/7/12
to
news:3bKdnRFIvuEeNazS...@mchsi.com...
But the almost identical temperature in 2010 is *not* a statistical outlier,
and shouldn't be removed?
How do you figure that?
Maybe if you provided the calculation which shows that 1998 is a statistical
outlier, and the rules you are using for removing "statistical outliers", we
could see if your argument has any merit at all.
A nice start would be showing that 1998 is a "3 sigma outlier" as was
claimed.
and shouldn't be removed?
How do you figure that?
Maybe if you provided the calculation which shows that 1998 is a statistical
outlier, and the rules you are using for removing "statistical outliers", we
could see if your argument has any merit at all.
A nice start would be showing that 1998 is a "3 sigma outlier" as was
claimed.
Jeffrey Hamilton
Feb 7, 2012, 11:24:46 PM2/7/12
to
it, I've had my share of back problems in the past and it can really lay you
low. Hope it starts to feel better soon. In the meantime make sure your wife
is spacing her finishing nails properly. :-)
cheers....Jeff
Sam Wormley
Feb 7, 2012, 11:58:48 PM2/7/12
to
On 2/7/12 7:18 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3bKdnRFIvuEeNazS...@mchsi.com...
>> On 1/31/12 9:49 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>> Again, the claim was that the temperature in 1998 was a "3 sigma
>>> outlier".
>>
>> 2010 tied for the second warmest year in the last 100+ years.
>> the 1998 peak temperature is a statistical outlier, when looking
>> at all the data.
>>
>>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
>>
>
> But the almost identical temperature in 2010 is *not* a statistical
> outlier, and shouldn't be removed?
Perhaps you didn't notice that the 2010 value occurs a dozen years
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3bKdnRFIvuEeNazS...@mchsi.com...
>> On 1/31/12 9:49 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>> Again, the claim was that the temperature in 1998 was a "3 sigma
>>> outlier".
>>
>> 2010 tied for the second warmest year in the last 100+ years.
>> the 1998 peak temperature is a statistical outlier, when looking
>> at all the data.
>>
>>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
>>
>
> But the almost identical temperature in 2010 is *not* a statistical
> outlier, and shouldn't be removed?
later during the warming trend. :-o
Peter Webb
Feb 8, 2012, 12:50:22 AM2/8/12
to
news:_amdnbR3O_GVnK_S...@mchsi.com...
Yes, so?
Are you attempting to normalise the data first by removing (assumed)
systemic warming over the period? If so, you are assuming that there has
been warming over the period, which is assuming what you are trying to prove
making it an entirely circular argument (and, I might add, statistically
very suspect).
If not, what do you care where 2010 comes in the sequence?
Perhaps you should provide the calculation which supposedly shows that 1998
was a 3 sigma outlier. I have asked for this repeatedly, but it has not been
forthcoming. Sounds like absolute bullshit to me, lets see how it was
derived.
> during the warming trend. :-o
>
Temperatures fell somewhat between 1998 and 2011.
>
Are you attempting to normalise the data first by removing (assumed)
systemic warming over the period? If so, you are assuming that there has
been warming over the period, which is assuming what you are trying to prove
making it an entirely circular argument (and, I might add, statistically
very suspect).
If not, what do you care where 2010 comes in the sequence?
Perhaps you should provide the calculation which supposedly shows that 1998
was a 3 sigma outlier. I have asked for this repeatedly, but it has not been
forthcoming. Sounds like absolute bullshit to me, lets see how it was
derived.
> during the warming trend. :-o
>
>
Sam Wormley
Feb 8, 2012, 8:44:50 AM2/8/12
to
On 2/7/12 11:50 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_amdnbR3O_GVnK_S...@mchsi.com...
>> On 2/7/12 7:18 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>>
>>> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3bKdnRFIvuEeNazS...@mchsi.com...
>>>> On 1/31/12 9:49 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>>>> Again, the claim was that the temperature in 1998 was a "3 sigma
>>>>> outlier".
>>>>
>>>> 2010 tied for the second warmest year in the last 100+ years.
>>>> the 1998 peak temperature is a statistical outlier, when looking
>>>> at all the data.
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the almost identical temperature in 2010 is *not* a statistical
>>> outlier, and shouldn't be removed?
>>
>> Perhaps you didn't notice that the 2010 value occurs a dozen years
>> later
>
> Yes, so?
>
So--it matters in a data set of values changing over time.
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_amdnbR3O_GVnK_S...@mchsi.com...
>> On 2/7/12 7:18 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>>
>>> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3bKdnRFIvuEeNazS...@mchsi.com...
>>>> On 1/31/12 9:49 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>>>>> Again, the claim was that the temperature in 1998 was a "3 sigma
>>>>> outlier".
>>>>
>>>> 2010 tied for the second warmest year in the last 100+ years.
>>>> the 1998 peak temperature is a statistical outlier, when looking
>>>> at all the data.
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the almost identical temperature in 2010 is *not* a statistical
>>> outlier, and shouldn't be removed?
>>
>> Perhaps you didn't notice that the 2010 value occurs a dozen years
>> later
>
> Yes, so?
>
Peter Webb
Feb 8, 2012, 9:24:23 AM2/8/12
to
news:srmdnbafnIDP4a_S...@mchsi.com...
But the temperatures haven't changed much since 1998.
kym
Feb 8, 2012, 11:43:09 AM2/8/12
to
On Feb 9, 12:44 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/12 11:50 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On 2/7/12 11:50 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:_amdnbR3O_GVnK_S...@mchsi.com...
> >> On 2/7/12 7:18 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> >>> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> On 2/7/12 7:18 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> >>>news:3bKdnRFIvuEeNazS...@mchsi.com...
> >>>> On 1/31/12 9:49 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
> >>>>> Again, the claim was that the temperature in 1998 was a "3 sigma
> >>>>> outlier".
> >>>> 2010 tied for the second warmest year in the last 100+ years.
> >>>> the 1998 peak temperature is a statistical outlier, when looking
> >>>> at all the data.
> >>>>>http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
> >>> But the almost identical temperature in 2010 is *not* a statistical
> >>> outlier, and shouldn't be removed?
> >> Perhaps you didn't notice that the 2010 value occurs a dozen years
> >> later
> > Yes, so?
> So--it matters in a data set of values changing over time.
Oy, kooks. Esp ones that self-evaluates as "far from a statistics
> >>>> On 1/31/12 9:49 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
> >>>>> Again, the claim was that the temperature in 1998 was a "3 sigma
> >>>>> outlier".
> >>>> 2010 tied for the second warmest year in the last 100+ years.
> >>>> the 1998 peak temperature is a statistical outlier, when looking
> >>>> at all the data.
> >>>>>http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
> >>> But the almost identical temperature in 2010 is *not* a statistical
> >>> outlier, and shouldn't be removed?
> >> Perhaps you didn't notice that the 2010 value occurs a dozen years
> >> later
> > Yes, so?
> So--it matters in a data set of values changing over time.
illiterate".
ROTFL.
Every time I hear some kook compare every year with 1998 but
studiously avoids the same
"analysis" against 1997 or 1999 or any other year I have to laugh.
--
[An honest evaluation:]
Sam Wormley
Feb 8, 2012, 12:39:22 PM2/8/12
to
On 2/8/12 8:24 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> But the temperatures haven't changed much since 1998.
>
>
Look where the 1998 peak is with respect to the trend line
>
> But the temperatures haven't changed much since 1998.
>
>
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+60+years
Peter Webb
Feb 8, 2012, 6:03:26 PM2/8/12
to
news:a1b5e660-8896-404b...@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
If you are referring to me, and if you think I have said something
incorrect, you should quote what I said in context, and I will try and clear
it up for you.
ROTFL.
______________________________________
In the mean time, I am still waiting for your calculation that 1998 was "3
sigma outlier". On the face of it, it appears to bullshit, and you have
repeatedly refused to produce the calculation that supposedly gave this
result. So, can you justify this claim, or is it just something you
invented?
On Feb 9, 12:44 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/12 11:50 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:_amdnbR3O_GVnK_S...@mchsi.com...
> >> On 2/7/12 7:18 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> >>> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:3bKdnRFIvuEeNazS...@mchsi.com...
> >>>> On 1/31/12 9:49 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
> >>>>> Again, the claim was that the temperature in 1998 was a "3 sigma
> >>>>> outlier".
> >>>> 2010 tied for the second warmest year in the last 100+ years.
> >>>> the 1998 peak temperature is a statistical outlier, when looking
> >>>> at all the data.
> >>>>>http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
> >>> But the almost identical temperature in 2010 is *not* a statistical
> >>> outlier, and shouldn't be removed?
> >> Perhaps you didn't notice that the 2010 value occurs a dozen years
> >> later
> > Yes, so?
> So--it matters in a data set of values changing over time.
Oy, kooks. Esp ones that self-evaluates as "far from a statistics
illiterate".
_____________________________________
> On 2/7/12 11:50 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:_amdnbR3O_GVnK_S...@mchsi.com...
> >> On 2/7/12 7:18 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> >>> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:3bKdnRFIvuEeNazS...@mchsi.com...
> >>>> On 1/31/12 9:49 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
> >>>>> Again, the claim was that the temperature in 1998 was a "3 sigma
> >>>>> outlier".
> >>>> 2010 tied for the second warmest year in the last 100+ years.
> >>>> the 1998 peak temperature is a statistical outlier, when looking
> >>>> at all the data.
> >>>>>http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=global+temperature+last+30+years
> >>> But the almost identical temperature in 2010 is *not* a statistical
> >>> outlier, and shouldn't be removed?
> >> Perhaps you didn't notice that the 2010 value occurs a dozen years
> >> later
> > Yes, so?
> So--it matters in a data set of values changing over time.
Oy, kooks. Esp ones that self-evaluates as "far from a statistics
illiterate".
If you are referring to me, and if you think I have said something
incorrect, you should quote what I said in context, and I will try and clear
it up for you.
ROTFL.
______________________________________
In the mean time, I am still waiting for your calculation that 1998 was "3
sigma outlier". On the face of it, it appears to bullshit, and you have
repeatedly refused to produce the calculation that supposedly gave this
result. So, can you justify this claim, or is it just something you
invented?
Peter Webb
Feb 8, 2012, 6:04:38 PM2/8/12
to
news:G7udnQGrROTXLq_S...@mchsi.com...
Why?
We weren't talking about some undefined "trend line", we are talking about
global temperatures. And they have decreased since 1998.
We weren't talking about some undefined "trend line", we are talking about
global temperatures. And they have decreased since 1998.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages