415000 years of temperature change.....true or false?

[Frankfooter]

Tell us what you think a margin of error is.

Please, don't be embarrassed if you can't come up with an answer. We know you never made it as far as high school, so this is probably very challenging for you.

And if you ever get done with that challenge, try looking up the words "statistically significant."

Moviefan:

Tell us why you can't rank outputs if there is a margin of error.
Explain to us how ranking political polls, for example, with the margin of error noted is 'lying'.

Tell us why you think ranking 0.68 as higher then 0.67, and noting the margin for error is 'lying'.

Show us what statistics textbook you studied that stated ranking outputs with margins of error is 'lying'.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Moviefan:

Tell us why you can't rank outputs if there is a margin of error.
Explain to us how ranking political polls, for example, with the margin of error noted is 'lying'.

Tell us why you think ranking 0.68 as higher then 0.67, and noting the margin for error is 'lying'.

Show us what statistics textbook you studied that stated ranking outputs with margins of error is 'lying'.

There is nothing in your post that convinces me that you know what a margin of error is.

The challenge stands: Tell us what a margin of error is.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Explain to us how ranking political polls, for example, with the margin of error noted is 'lying'.

Tell us why you think ranking 0.68 as higher then 0.67, and noting the margin for error is 'lying'.

Nice try.

The NASA news release didn't say anything about the margin of error or the fact that the temperature in 2014 was statistically the same as 2005 and 2010.

https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

I suppose Gavin Schmidt will say it was a "technical error" that the news release said 2014 was the warmest year on record, when 2014 was actually the same as 2005 and 2010.

 

[Frankfooter]

On a different note, here's something really funny.

In a BBC interview the other day, actress Emma Thompson said the Earth's temperature could increase by 4 degrees Celsius by 2030.

Oh my god!
I can't believe an actress would make a scientific mistake!
Why by noting this you may have disproven the theory of anthropogenic climate change (sarcasm alert for the FAST).

I think that's not as bad a mistake as your Bjorn again mistake, as posted above.
Bjorn is supposed to be one of your more credible deniers.

Or Don Eastbrook, he's another denialist who's theories are almost as solid as your math skills.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nice try.

The NASA news release didn't say anything about the margin of error or the fact that the temperature in 2014 was statistically the same as 2005 and 2010.

https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

The said this:

The result is an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980.

The big point is that the three warmest years happened in the last 10 years, disproving your claim of 'flattening' warming.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I told you before -- the statement in the news release about the "baseline period" has nothing to do with the margin of error.

Face it -- you don't know what a margin of error is.

There was nothing in the news release about the margin of error or the fact that the temperature anomaly in 2014 was statistically the same as the anomaly for 2005 and 2010.

Those of us who do know what a margin of error is can state with certainty that the news release was lying. NASA had no evidence that would allow it to say whether 2005, 2010 or 2014 was the warmest year.

 

[Frankfooter]

Those of us who do know what a margin of error is can state with certainty that the news release was lying.

Then answer these questions and share your vast knowledge of stats:

Tell us why you can't rank outputs if there is a margin of error.

Explain to us how ranking political polls, for example, with the margin of error noted is 'lying'.

Tell us why you think ranking 0.68 as higher then 0.67, and noting the margin for error, or that the number is an estimate, is 'lying'.

Show us what statistics textbook you studied that stated ranking outputs with margins of error is 'lying'.

 

[basketcase]

Groggy: Tell us what you think a margin of error is....

A range of possible values around a central mean. The mean for 2014 was higher than the mean for 2010 or 2005.

 

[basketcase]

On a different note, here's something really funny.

In a BBC interview the other day, actress Emma Thompson said the Earth's temperature could increase by 4 degrees Celsius by 2030....

That's why we trust scientists over actors.

Actually to be accurate, you don't trust scientists since you think they lie. Maybe you should stick to actors.

 

[FAST]

Question for ya frank,...what is the margin of error for the study that produced the 0.66, 0.67 and 0.68 numbers,...???

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Question for ya frank,...what is the margin of error for the study that produced the 0.66, 0.67 and 0.68 numbers,...???

FAST

Question for you FAST.

Is it lying to say who is leading a political poll when parties are leading with less then the margin of error?

 

[Frankfooter]

Now, this claim that NASA 'lied' is similar to moviefan's repeated claims that the 'cooked the books'.
Both are slander, poorly informed slander.

NASA/GISS margin of error is +or- 0.05ºC
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html

Posting that 2014 was the warmest year when the probability is that it was the warmest year is correct.
I'm going to quote and answer to a post on another denier site that states why in a clearer way then I can.

Frankly, this article is written by someone who doesn't understand probability. What NASA, NOAA, JMA and the Hadley Center are saying is that 2014 had the highest probability of being the warmest year on record, compared to the other years. Every other year had a lower probability. The statistical difference is small and James Hansen et al. look at the GISS temperature data and say that there is a statistical tie between 2014, 2010 and 2005 (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/.... However, Gavin Schmidt is not being dishonest about the numbers that GISS calculated. 2014 did have the highest probability and the mean surface temperature anomaly (compared to 1951-1980 average) for these years was:
2014: +0.675
2010: +0.661
2005: +0.651
2007: +0.619
1998: +0.607

Frankly, whether 2005, 2010 or 2014 was the warmest year doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the overall scheme of things since the important thing is the overall trend in the temperature, which is clear. Another thing to keep in mind is that we are arguing about the mean surface temperature, but the atmosphere absorbs 2%-3% of all the heat on the planet, whereas the ocean absorbs 93% and the cryosphere absorbs most of the rest. The Argo floats in the ocean show warming. The ice melting in the Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland and the mountain glaciers shows warming. The mean surface temperature shows warming. In other words, Marc Morano is making a mountain out of a mole hill and then using it to accuse climate scientists of being manipulative and dishonest. In reality the person who is being manipulative is Morano by trying to make people believe that global warming is not occurring and trying to ruin the professional reputations of the scientists at NASA and NOAA.

That's a reply posted on a climatedepot article, one of those places where moviefan gets his talking points.

 

[Moviefan-2]

A range of possible values around a central mean. The mean for 2014 was higher than the mean for 2010 or 2005.

Right. But the difference between the mean value for each year was far too minuscule to represent a statistically significant difference.

Statistically, the temperatures for 2005, 2010 and 2014 were the same. NASA had no evidence that would allow it to state that 2014 was "the warmest year."

That's why we trust scientists over actors.

Another point that went completely over your head.

The Emma Thompson quote provided the context. The humorous part was Gavin Schmidt's assertion that discussions about climate change shouldn't bother with science.

Posting that 2014 was the warmest year when the probability is that it was the warmest year is correct.

The "highest probability" crap is pure sophistry -- nothing more than an attempt to defend the indefensible.

NASA had no evidence that 2014 was warmer than 2005 or 2010. If NASA had wanted to state that it believed -- as a matter of opinion -- that 2014 was probably the warmest year, then that's what the news release should have said. It also should have included a description of how it reached that opinion.

The release did no such thing. It stated that it was a confirmed fact -- not just a possibility -- that 2014 was the warmest year.

There was no evidence to support NASA's assertion. The anomaly for 2014 was tied with 2005 and 2010. NASA was lying, as Gavin Schmidt acknowledged in his interview with the Daily Mail.

 

[FAST]

Question for you FAST.

Is it lying to say who is leading a political poll when parties are leading with less then the margin of error?

Typical weasel response frank,...

Not answering my original question,...does NOT mean you get to ask a new one,...well not among men,...anyway.

But I'll give you a little room to squirm,...If you don't know the answer to my question,...just say so,...that would be acceptable.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Typical weasel response frank,...

Not answering my original question,...does NOT mean you get to ask a new one,...well not among men,...anyway.

But I'll give you a little room to squirm,...If you don't know the answer to my question,...just say so,...that would be acceptable.

FAST

Post #172, idiot.

Now answer mine:
Is it lying to say who is leading a political poll when parties are leading with less then the margin of error?

 

[Frankfooter]

Right. But the difference between the mean value for each year was far too minuscule to represent a statistically significant difference.

Statistically, the temperatures for 2005, 2010 and 2014 were the same. NASA had no evidence that would allow it to state that 2014 was "the warmest year."

You are wrong.

2014 had the highest probability of being the warmest year on record.
It is reasonable to say 2014 was the warmest year on record (not including this year, which will sadly blow it away).


I take it you now have admitted this fact:
Though on the positive side you now admit that the 3 warmest years on record (not including this year) all happened within the last 10 years.
And that claiming that climate change is 'flattening' is pure nonsense.

 

[FAST]

Post #172, idiot.

Now answer mine:
Is it lying to say who is leading a political poll when parties are leading with less then the margin of error?

Still haven't answered my question,...idiot.

You do realize that the discussion here is about THE UNEMPLOYABLES lying about so called "global warming",...not politics,...

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Still haven't answered my question,...idiot.

Really now?

Question for ya frank,...what is the margin of error for the study that produced the 0.66, 0.67 and 0.68 numbers,...???

FAST

NASA/GISS margin of error is +or- 0.05ºC
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html

Not so fast, are you?

 

[Moviefan-2]

You are wrong.

2014 had the highest probability of being the warmest year on record.
It is reasonable to say 2014 was the warmest year on record (not including this year, which will sadly blow it away).

I already explained this to you. The "highest probability" nonsense is nothing more than sophistry.

If NASA wanted to express the opinion that it believed 2014 was possibly the warmest year, it had every right to express that opinion.

NASA's news release said nothing about probabilities, the margin of error or the organization's opinions. It stated that 2014 was "the" warmest year as a categorical fact -- a statement that was not supported by the evidence. NASA's own data showed 2014 was statistically the same as 2005 and 2010.

As the Daily Mail reported: "Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all."

NASA was lying.

 

[FAST]

+/- 0.05 of BULL SHIT,...IS STILL BULL SHIT.

Really now?

Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter
NASA/GISS margin of error is +or- 0.05ºC
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html

From your link,...
The GISS results are really estimates based on the available data. Accurate error estimates are hard to obtain. However, it is likely that the largest contribution to the margin of error is given by the temporal and spatial data gaps.

So now that we have some background on the validity of THE UNEMPLOYABLE claims,...lets look at the numbers they are presenting to the public,...and you so often quote.

Anomalies,....0.66C, 0,67C and 0.68C,...

If you apply the self proclaimed tolerance of +/- .05C to these numbers,...what does this actually mean,...it means that the 0.66C value can be 0.71C,...and 0.68C can be 0.63C,...or any combination you want to throw out.

WOW,...that's really definitive shit here,...isn't it,...ABSOLUTELY USELESS BULL SHIT,...

If anybody was to present this in an engineering environment as anything meaningful,...they would be laughed out of the profession.

But all THE UNEMPLOYABLE have to do is present this crap to politicians,...and other none thinking individuals,...and they get another paycheck.

You brought political polls into the debate,...the lowest claimed error % in the polls was 2%,...did you even think to calculate % the tolerance THE UNEMPLOYABLE are spewing out for their guesstimates,...???

FAST