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

[Frankfooter]

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.

Then why are you whining so much, that is exactly what they did based on their best information?

They said this:

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

And they give you the data, the sources for the data, the methods they used for their estimates and the error margin.
Its very straight ahead and open.

You are an idiot.
That's all there is to it.

You read this in some denier post and now won't let go of it, despite being shown to be wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

]
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,...

Assuming that they are using the same process based on the same readings from the same measuring stations its probable that any margin of error would be applicable to all years, not just one. If there is a flaw to their processing, or to the recordings, it is likely to show up as the same flaw year to year (since they don't change very those very often and specifically note when they do). Then it would be safe to assume that if the yearly estimates are off, they are all off the same amount and the rankings would be the same.

You and moviefan are both acting as if this is some kind of conspiracy when its all out and open.
NASA ranks the years based on the highest probability that they are ranked correctly, sometimes they come out a tiny bit different the MET, but still similar enough to prove that the system is robust and fairly accurate.

What you both refuse to acknowledge is you both have admitted that the three warmest years happened in the last decade, showing there is no 'plateau' or 'flattening' in the rise in global temps.


All it shows is how unemployable you would be in any field where real understanding of science is needed.

 

[basketcase]

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

Just because you say so...

Seems the experts disagree - but then again we know you think scientists are all liars when you don;t like what they say.

And even if 2014 was the second hottest year recorded, are we supposed to ignore it?

 

[TESLAMotors]

Nottyboi, were you jealous of BigSleazy's thread? So you had to make another one like it?
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Climate-Change-Nobel-Prize-Winning-Scientist


SMH. lol

 

[Moviefan-2]

If there is a flaw to their processing, or to the recordings, it is likely to show up as the same flaw year to year (since they don't change very those very often and specifically note when they do). Then it would be safe to assume that if the yearly estimates are off, they are all off the same amount and the rankings would be the same.

How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? You don't know what a margin of error is, and your attempts to guess are beyond embarrassing.

The assumption that any differences "would be the same" for each recorded year is as spectacularly wrong as a typical IPCC prediction.

As much as I think you should try to learn these things before you post your opinions, let me explain this to you. If we accept NASA's proclaimed margin of error, the range for the 2005 anomaly was from 0.61 degrees C to 0.71 degrees C. The 2014 range (at the time the news release was issued) was 0.64 degrees C to 0.74 degrees C.

If the actual temperature in 2005 was 0.71 degrees C and the actual temperature in 2014 was 0.64 degrees C, that would represent a drop in the Earth's temperature.

Given the ranges, the temperature may have increased. It may have decreased. It may have stayed the exact same. Within the margin of error for each recorded anomaly, there is no way to know.

That is why the anomalies for 2005, 2010 and 2014 are statistically tied.

I'm growing very tired of spending my time on TERB tutoring you. The least you could do is thank me for all of the education you have received for free.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Just because you say so...

Are you telling us that you don't think Gavin Schimidt knows the meaning of the words "statistically significant"?

Are you serious?

 

[Frankfooter]

The assumption that any differences "would be the same" for each recorded year is as spectacularly wrong as a typical IPCC prediction.

Based on what?
Give me the math, or the studies to back up this claim or admit you made it up.

As much as I think you should try to learn these things before you post your opinions, let me explain this to you. If we accept NASA's proclaimed margin of error, the range for the 2005 anomaly was from 0.61 degrees C to 0.71 degrees C. The 2014 range (at the time the news release was issued) was 0.64 degrees C to 0.74 degrees C.

Yup, and therefore we can confidently say that in all probability 2014 was warmer then 2005, just like NASA did.

Given the ranges, the temperature may have increased. It may have decreased. It may have stayed the exact same. Within the margin of error for each recorded anomaly, there is no way to know.

False, even if you assume the worst case scenario with the margin of error (the only way you can see it) then there is still no way to look at this chart and say its 'flattening' or flat or that there is a 'plateau', as you like to claim.

From the Guardian, including a star plotted for 2015.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Based on what?

Based on an understanding of the actual meaning of a margin of error -- something that completely eludes you.

I'm not going to provide you with "studies" to teach you how a margin of error works. Your posting history has convinced me that you wouldn't understand. Even worse, I don't see any evidence that you're even trying to learn.

You get an 'F'.

 

[Frankfooter]

I'm not going to provide you with "studies" to teach you how a margin of error works.

Now this is funny.
From the fool who lied about two studies, used two fake charts and is losing a bet on rising global temperatures.
I'm sure you'd come up with some failed geography teacher on youtube doing a seminar on mock string theory as your 'study', based on your previous 'sources'.


We are a week away from the August's global reading.
Think its going to to be really, really cold or just another record hot month?

Are you ready to admit you've lost the bet yet?
Or do I get to taunt you mercilessly for another four months?

 

[FAST]

Based on an understanding of the actual meaning of a margin of error -- something that completely eludes you.

I'm not going to provide you with "studies" to teach you how a margin of error works. Your posting history has convinced me that you wouldn't understand. Even worse, I don't see any evidence that you're even trying to learn.

You get an 'F'.

Now this is funny.
From the fool who lied about two studies, used two fake charts and is losing a bet on rising global temperatures.
I'm sure you'd come up with some failed geography teacher on youtube doing a seminar on mock string theory as your 'study', based on your previous 'sources'.


We are a week away from the August's global reading.
Think its going to to be really, really cold or just another record hot month?

Are you ready to admit you've lost the bet yet?
Or do I get to taunt you mercilessly for another four months?

Just what the hell does your reply have to do with moviefan's posts with regards to margin of error,...absolutely NOTHING,...as usual.

Moviefans post is correct,...you have no understanding of logic and simple math.

You do how ever,...are very good a evading the subject,...while at the same time pretending to possess the mental capacity to debate any subject.

Either that,...or as many have said,...you are simply regurgitate the same BULL SHIT over and over again,...all the while confirming that you never have anything worthwhile to offer.

You will notice that even basketcase does NOT come to your defense,...because he simply does not want to be associated with a loser.

FAST

 

[basketcase]

Are you telling us that you don't think Gavin Schimidt knows the meaning of the words "statistically significant"?

Are you serious?

Funny but I didn't see anywhere where he said NASA was lying.

 

[Frankfooter]

Just what the hell does your reply have to do with moviefan's posts with regards to margin of error,...absolutely NOTHING,...as usual.

Moviefans post is correct,...you have no understanding of logic and simple math.

Look, they ranked the years according to the probabilities that they were the warmest, according to their best estimates on global temps.
That is what they do and that is what they say they do.
There is no 'lying' involved.

Its an idiotic argument that moviefan parroted from wattsup or some other stupid denier site, and its an argument that you are parroting without fully understanding.

Accusing NASA of 'lying' for doing exactly what they state they do is one of the stupidest arguments I've heard from the two of you.
Stuuuuuuuupid.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Moviefans post is correct,...you have no understanding of logic and simple math.

Anyone who has dealt with Groggy/Frankfooter before is used to this nonsense.

He makes up some fairy-tale claim -- such as his "same flaw year to year" rubbish -- and then says, Prove it isn't true. (Naturally, of course, he offers no evidence to support his claim -- because there isn't any evidence. He doesn't even know what a margin of error is).

TERB is a website for adults. If someone insists on believing in fairy tales, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove the fairy tales aren't true.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Funny but I didn't see anywhere where he said NASA was lying.

Try reading it again. This time, take your time and try to actually understand the story.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3l0SRhV00

 

[Frankfooter]

TERB is a website for adults. If someone insists on believing in fairy tales, I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove the fairy tales aren't true.

As I seem to recall you called NASA's numbers 'fairy tales' before.
Your sense of reality is suspect.

 

[Frankfooter]

Try reading it again. This time, take your time and try to actually understand the story.

I've linked to you the FAQ's that show that NASA/GISS publicly announce their margin of error and quoted that they say the global temperatures are 'estimates'.
Claiming that they 'failed to mention this' is just plain stupid and lazy reporting.

NASA ranks the year based on the highest probability that it was the warmest, based on their estimates of global temps, including understanding their margin of errors.
Claiming they 'lied' when they ranked 0.68 as warmer then 0.67 is just stupid.

Repeating this 'fairy tale' that they lied is dishonest.

 

[Moviefan-2]

NASA ranks the year based on the highest probability that it was the warmest, based on their estimates of global temps, including understanding their margin of errors.

This has been explained to you numerous times.

The news release didn't say 2014 was "probably" the warmest year. It also said nothing about the margin of error or the fact that 2014 was statistically tied with 2005 and 2010. It stated that 2014 was the warmest year as an absolute fact -- a statement that wasn't supported by the data.

Given the margin of error and the differences of only a few 1/100ths of a degree, NASA had no way of knowing which year was the warmest to that level of precision. There was no basis for stating that 2014 was the warmest.

The news release was lying.

Even worse, it's appalling that an organization that claims to believe in science would use such highest-probability sophistry to try to defend fear-mongering. The news release should have skipped the drama and announced the factual reality that the temperature anomaly in 2014 was the same as 2005 and 2010.

As I said at the beginning of this discussion, I don't feel an organization that makes the kind of dishonest claims that were in that news release -- no matter how anyone tries to rationalize it -- is spending taxpayers' dollars wisely.

 

[Frankfooter]

This has been explained to you numerous times.

The news release didn't say 2014 was "probably" the warmest year. It also said nothing about the margin of error or the fact that 2014 was statistically tied with 2005 and 2010. It stated that 2014 was the warmest year as an absolute fact -- a statement that wasn't supported by the data.
.

From the actual press release and not some second hand article:

he GISS analysis incorporates surface temperature measurements from 6,300 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations. This raw data is analyzed using an algorithm that takes into account the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heating effects that could skew the calculation. The result is an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980.

NOAA scientists used much of the same raw temperature data, but a different baseline period. They also employ their own methods to estimate global temperatures.



GISS is a NASA laboratory managed by the Earth Sciences Division of the agency’s Goddard Space Flight Center, in Greenbelt, Maryland. The laboratory is affiliated with Columbia University’s Earth Institute and School of Engineering and Applied Science in New York.

NASA monitors Earth's vital signs from land, air and space with a fleet of satellites, as well as airborne and ground-based observation campaigns. NASA develops new ways to observe and study Earth's interconnected natural systems with long-term data records and computer analysis tools to better see how our planet is changing. The agency shares this unique knowledge with the global community and works with institutions in the United States and around the world that contribute to understanding and protecting our home planet.

Related links:
NASA Earth Observatory has posted a somewhat different temperature summation at:
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=85083

NOAA's National Climatic Data Center's summary is at:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/2014/12

Additional commentary about the 2014 temperature anomaly is provided by Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University at:
www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150116_Temperature2014.pdf

The data set of 2014 surface temperature measurements is available at:
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The methodology used to make the temperature calculation is available at:
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/

For related press briefing images related to the data, visit:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf

For more information about Earth science at NASA, visit:
www.nasa.gov/earth

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/

Now, you idiot.
That is from the press release.
Included in that press release is a link to a document that shows the exact probabilities that 2014 was the warmest from NASA and NOAA in an easy to read graphic with large fonts for idiots like you and FAST.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf

Also included on the actual press release you accuse of lying is a direct link to another document that has more then 'press release' summaries.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150116_Temperature2014.pdf

And the very first fucking paragraph of that document says this:

Abstract. Global surface temperature in 2014 was +0.68°C (~1.2°F) warmer than the 1951-1980
base period in the GISTEMP analysis, making 2014 the warmest year in the period of instrumental
data, but the difference from the prior warmest year (2010), less than 0.02°C, is within uncertainty
of measurement.

...

The three warmest years in the GISTEMP analysis, 2014, 2010, and 2005 in that
order, can be considered to be in a statistical tie because of several sources of uncertainty, the largest
source being incomplete spatial coverage of the data. Similarly the next warmest years in our analysis,
1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2013, can be taken as a statistical tie for the 4th through the 10th
in our analysis. The 15 warmest years all occurred since 1998 (including 1998).

There you fucking have it folks.
The press release itself came with the information that you say they lied about.
You have once again been accusing NASA of lying without ever even fucking reading the press release, aren't you?

All you ever do is parrot denier articles without checking to see if they are bullshit.
You are the perfect mark for fossil fuel lobbyists, an idiot who reads and accepts everything that fits his view regardless of how stupid.

Now you've been going on and on for a few pages on this.
You owe the board, NASA and me an apology.

Idiot.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I see.

So the onus was on journalists to click through to other web pages to determine whether the statements in the NASA news release were true or not -- because, according to Frankfooter, NASA can't be trusted to make honest statements in its news releases.

What hogwash. The veracity of the news release either stands up on its own, or it doesn't. When NASA issues a news release declaring that "(t)he year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880", the public has every right to expect that the statement is supported by evidence.

In this case, the statement was contradicted by the evidence. The assertion about 2014 being the "warmest year since 1880" was clearly false. NASA had no idea if 2014 was the warmest year on record.

The NASA news release was lying.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Consider the following sentence: Frankfooter is a transvestite.

What do we know about that sentence?:

-- There is no evidence that conclusively proves that it's true.

-- But it's possible. We certainly have no evidence that would allow us to say as an absolute fact that it's untrue.

Thus, according to Frankfooter, the statement that "Frankfooter is a transvestite" must be accepted as an honest statement of fact.

Isn't "science" according to Frankfooter a lot of fun? :thumb: