Well said.
Erroneous data? "It's a conspiracy!!" Eliminate the erroneous data? "They're MANIPULATING the data!! It's a conspiracy!!"
Some of you guys are a bunch of friggin idiots. Did you even read the article (which is pretty clearly written by someone with an agenda - hint - read the address of the URL:
The author found that there were errors in data as reported somewhere. Yet, you guys claim that
A) This raw data that is publicly available is not publicly available because scientists aren't releasing it.
B) Any attempt to deal with outliers like this is "cooking the data."
C) This data was actually used in climate models when even the author states that he doesn't know.
Regardless of your point of view on global warming, to accept at face value any article written which supports your point of view shows an incredible degree of academic laziness.
Furthermore, the title - average of 10 to 15 degrees warmer. Sure, if you have one data point that's 500 and something degrees above the actual value, when you average it in with a bunch of other data points that are correct, the new average is going to be 10-15 degrees higher. If the other data points were higher than actual, then that average is going to be even higher yet. I can't recall any scientific studies that said "OMG! Michigan was 15 degrees warmer on average this year!" That's pretty telling that this 600 degree point was NOT used. ANYONE who isn't an idiot will "manipulate (omg!)" the raw data to exclude outliers.
I'm simply pointing out the stupidity of your post. A linear fit is usually a good approximation for a very small dataset, but rarely is for larger ones (such as the one you posted). I'm telling you that the "trend" you cite in your data is bunk. So is any apparent trend in the other guy's data. Step away from the keyboard and quit posting ignorant crap and I'll be happy to leave you alone.
Then I suggest you should say what you mean in proper English rather than whatever ghetto dialect you've been using.LOL you come here and try to insult my intelligence, and can't even understand a simple point I am making. You attack points I am not even making it's nice when you. Before you spout your mouth off it's good to understand what the person is getting at to begin with. Instead you come in here trying your hardest to sound smart, yet you come off sounding like a dick. If you were actually arguing against some point I had tried to make I would be glad to back it up, and argue my point. But you are arguing my point for me, but you don't seem to understand this is just what I have been getting at in these posts.
Then I suggest you should say what you mean in proper English rather than whatever ghetto dialect you've been using.
Both poles? Do explain the growing Antarctic Sea Ice then.
LOLLERSKATES!!!!1! Another ignorant high school kid feels sorry for me because I lack the ability to decipher his unintelligible ramblings. Don't worry - I'll be teaching a course on this stuff again in two weeks and I'll let you audit it for free if you can make your way here.LOL I feel sorry for you...
Summer at the North Pole means Winter at the South Pole.
LOLLERSKATES!!!!1! Another ignorant high school kid feels sorry for me because I lack the ability to decipher his unintelligible ramblings. Don't worry - I'll be teaching a course on this stuff again in two weeks and I'll let you audit it for free if you can make your way here.
You tried to pull a fast one and got caught. You can either own up to it, pretend like what I said is factually incorrect (which it isn't), or clarify (read: intrinsically change the meaning of) your original post to fall in line with reality. Or, you can call me an asshole in an effort to convince everyone else that what you said was a matter of opinion, rather than fact, such that you're entitled to it even if it is erroneous. Your choice.Nothing to add but insults I see. If you actually cared about trying to convince people about your argument then you wouldn't come on here and insult people every post. You come in here with your preconceived notions of what people know and that they know less than you.
It works much better getting your point across if you don't act like an asshole. I'll try to make the point more obvious about what I was trying to get at. Now I could have just said what I was trying to get to, but for some people to understand you have to start with the basics. Maybe I should have made this a little more clear of what I was doing. But it works best if you don't say anything and let them come to the conclusion on there own, and show the flaws made.
But you come here with NOTHING to add, instead try to make yourself feel good by insulting someone. If you actually wanted to talk about something you would try to add something. But you obviously don't and are just an asshole and you seem to be proud of it.
That's all the time I will spend talking to you until you change your tone.
You tried to pull a fast one and got caught.
and if we look back 100,000 years we see something drastically different. Why does a "trend" over 100 years matter? It doesn't because the world is much older than 100 years of it's life time to matter much more than a blink is to us.How about instead of looking at 10 years, you look at the graph starting at 1895.
from the same website
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
But put in far more years, so how does this trend look?
and if we look back 100,000 years we see something drastically different. Why does a "trend" over 100 years matter? It doesn't because the world is much older than 100 years of it's life time to matter much more than a blink is to us.
and if we look back 100,000 years we see something drastically different. Why does a "trend" over 100 years matter? It doesn't because the world is much older than 100 years of it's life time to matter much more than a blink is to us.
His is to point out that we've warmed, as if to blame humans for that.
Mine is to point out that the warming trend has stopped.
It's good to know we have so many climate scientists and statisticians in ATPN.
I'm guessing you don't know that statistics can be manipulated. Like this example. If they change the raw data deliberately to support their tree hugging ways, no statistics can catch that.
Like these two guys (McShane and Wyner)?All I have to say to the topic on hand is that it's amusing that people with no statistical background tend to be the loudest people screaming "fraud".
Because, as I already stated, a linear fit is generally an acceptable approximation over small ranges of the independent variable. However, as I also already stated, such trends are meaningless unless they meet certain criteria, which is why I also already said that people on both sides of this argument need to quit posting pretty pictures to prove a scientific point. But you apparently neglected those statements because you were blinded by what you perceived as an attack on your buddy.If you're still talking about the trend line, why didn't you call out Jaskalas? He's the one that posted only 10 years with a linear, descending trend line, along with a link to the site that plots like that.
Because, as I already stated, a linear fit is generally an acceptable approximation over small ranges of the independent variable. However, as I also already stated, such trends are meaningless unless they meet certain criteria, which is why I also already said that people on both sides of this argument need to quit posting pretty pictures to prove a scientific point. But you apparently neglected those statements because you were blinded by what you perceived as an attack on your buddy.
60.4 in august? They obviously processed and refined the charts.
If people don't want me to tell them they're wrong, then they shouldn't be wrong in the first place. I don't give a rat's ass if someone's mangina is sore after being chafed by reality.Your points are much more effective when you don't insult people. Thanks for playing.