Exactly. That is what I have been trying to explain to Frankfooter and Basketcase:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...rue-or-false&p=5342214&viewfull=1#post5342214
415000 years of temperature change.....true or false?
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...rue-or-false&p=5342214&viewfull=1#post5342214
Sure, its a fuzzy number, but its a bigger fuzzy number and its not a 'lie' to say its bigger.
Its you who lied, you accused them of hiding the margin of error, probability and statistical information that they linked to on their press release.
Everything on that NASA press release is above board and very clear.
Meanwhile, what that press release notes that the 3 warmest years were in the last 10 years and the 14 of the 15 warmest years have happened since 2000 and you still think climate change is a conspiracy theory.
These discussions are like harper dodging the word recession with semantics.
7 billion humans cutting down trees and burning fossil fuels is having a major impact o the carbon cycle. Industrialization is pumping chemicals into the water messing with aquatic ecosystems. Construction is destroying terrestrial ecosystems. All of these things are triggers for a cascade of other effects. Heck something which seems so small like the decline of bee population actually has a big effect.
Call it what you want but how does anyone explain away all this human activity as nothing to worry about...... aside from being selfish and hoping to die before shit hits the fan.
7 billion humans cutting down trees and burning fossil fuels is having a major impact o the carbon cycle. Industrialization is pumping chemicals into the water messing with aquatic ecosystems. Construction is destroying terrestrial ecosystems. All of these things are triggers for a cascade of other effects. Heck something which seems so small like the decline of bee population actually has a big effect.
Call it what you want but how does anyone explain away all this human activity as nothing to worry about...... aside from being selfish and hoping to die before shit hits the fan.
Congratulations, Frankfooter. You've made a little bit of progress ... but you still have a long way to go.
Yes, it's a fuzzy number. And the numbers you're comparing it with are also fuzzy numbers.
And if the difference between one fuzzy number and the other fuzzy number is less than the margin of error, the two fuzzy numbers are statistically the same.
In this case, the differences were less than the margin of error. Thus, it is a lie to declare as an absolute fact that one of the fuzzy numbers was the warmest year on record. There was no statistical difference between any of the fuzzy numbers, and NASA has no idea whether 2005, 2010 or 2014 was the warmest year.
I don't disagree with some of the points you have raised. However, this debate is specific to the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming and the claim that man-made emissions are the primary driver of warming.
As far as AGW goes, the reality is this:
-- There was nothing unprecedented about the warming that occurred in the latter part of the 20th century.
-- There is no evidence of anything anthropogenic having occurred.
-- The predictions of how increased greenhouse gas emissions would affect the Earth's temperature have been spectacularly wrong.
That's not semantics, it's science. You test a hypothesis by comparing the predictions with the observed data.
There may be excellent reasons to consider policy changes such as reducing the use of coal-fired plants. But that doesn't mean we have to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
A BIGGER FUZZY NUMBER,...the only thing FUZZY,...is your logic.
Do I also have to find a "simple" example for you that explains,... that if the margin of error is LARGER than the difference in three values,...the three values are statistically the SAME,...and therefor CANNOT be used to demonstrate ANYTHING.
I'll try again,...if the difference between the 3 values is larger than the margin of error,...then, and only then, are you providing USEFUL information.
Even IF,... THE UNEMPLOYABLES included the margin of error,...there is plenty of examples of people here,...don't want to mention any names,...who would take what the media released,...and you keep spamming,... as anything meaningful,...dumb ass politicians and the media would also be perfect examples.
If including the margin of error is so important,....why the hell would you constantly ignore it,...you make no sense,...!!!
So what is it now,...climate change OR global warming,...
And once again,...this rate of global warming has happened before,...but now you are relying on temperature rise values that are statically the same to prove a point,...useless.
FAST
The on going "debate" here is weather or not "scientists" have any way of proving burning fossil fuels is changing the global temp.
Cutting down trees is constantly ignored by some here,..as a contributing factor,...but go and try to stop third world countries from chopping.
And NOBODY is discounting POLLUTION of the environment,...which is disgusting.
The debate is about accountability of certain self empowering associations,...nothing more.
FAST
I don't want to name anyone, either.
Although, if I were to do it, Frankfooter and Basketcase might come to mind.
AGW alarmists are the true deniers - of the scientific method, statistics and general logic. Many are fraud artists (Gore, Mann, Hansen are probably the 3 Musketeers in that respect). Or is it the 3 Stooges 
groggy and basketcase are so tunnel visioned they refuse to acknowledge the corruption and deceit that have perpetuated this myth that humans are responsible for the warming of the Earth. They continue to discredit valid scientific studies disproving the theory, satellite temperature data which shows no warming in the troposphere since 1979, computer models that have been so wrong on their predictions and climategate emails which explicitly show the fraud and dishonesty of the IPCC.
groggy and basketcase are so tunnel visioned they refuse to acknowledge the corruption and deceit that have perpetuated this myth that humans are responsible for the warming of the Earth. They continue to discredit valid scientific studies disproving the theory, satellite temperature data which shows no warming in the troposphere since 1979, computer models that have been so wrong on their predictions and climategate emails which explicitly show the fraud and dishonesty of the IPCC.
Sadly for you, this is not a survey of a small sample used to infer the OPINIONS of the many. In this case, we have thousands of actual MEASUREMENTS taken around the world.
Yes, each measurement has a potential error and that is what the margin of error is associated with. The mean of the measurements for 2014 was higher than the mean of the other years by a small amount. The associated measurement errors tell us there is a small range of values possibly represented by that mean but the highest of those probabilities is that 2014 was the hottest year recorded.
Once again you show you have little understanding of how science works.
Yes, you think it is fine for its time because the measurements for the past several years ruin your belief.
And now you go on about things that aren't even discussed in that IPCC 'leaked' graph you posted. No matter which data measurement you want to use, they fit well within the ranges on the graph you posted. It is pretty amazing how you keep trying to pretend otherwise.
Says the guy who doesn't understand scientific method or have the ability to plot points on a graph.Sorry, Mr. Grade 7 Dropout, but that's not the problem.
Nope.
14 of the 15 warmest years ever recorded happened after the end of the 20th century.
In the last 15 years.
Temperatures are still going up with 2015 likely to be a record warm, bet winning year.
Nope.
14 of the 15 warmest years ever recorded happened after the end of the 20th century.
In the last 15 years.
Temperatures are still going up with 2015 likely to be a record warm, bet winning year.
Nope, they fit the IPCC projections quite well.
And the observed data show that you are wrong, and in fact every chart you provided showed you were wrong or was bullshit.
whoops.
What a load of bullshit.
To begin with, the "small range of values" was significantly larger than the reported differences in the temperature anomalies. That means the temperature anomalies were officially the same.
As for your "highest probability" nonsense, that just reaffirms how "cartoon climatology" (to use Mark Steyn's words) actually works. Speculation is treated as if it is a fact.
NASA reported that 2014 was the warmest year as if it were a fact, not mere speculation. The data showed the 2014 anomaly was statistically the same as 2005 and 2010 and NASA has no way of knowing which year was the warmest. NASA was lying.
The current data show the same thing.
http://financialpostbusiness.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/fe0617_climate_c_mf.jpeg?w=620&h=552
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-reality.jpg
By contrast, you and Frankfooter/Groggy were challenged to produce graphs to support your assertion that current temperatures are aligned with the predictions.
You produced nothing.
All we got was your bogus attempts to claim that the IPCC graph would support the models if new data were placed on the graph, based on data from an entirely different graph (with a completely different baseline) and incorrect assumptions about the current models.
I hear that there has also been no warming in space or on the moon.
Which has as much relevance to the discussion about surface temperatures, where we humans live.
Yes, that's a load of bullshit.
The same two bullshit charts.
One, which is a bullshit chart, its not legit, and you can't find a met office version to show it is legit.
Two, is a denier bullshit chart that compares surface temperature projections against atmospheric readings. Total bullshit.
Here are legit and up to date charts:
Ok, on your terms here is the final word.
HadCRUT 4.4.0 for 2015 = 0.809ºC
Data available here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/...time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
Enter that dot on this chart from AR5, direct link to the IPCC chart.
That gives you a dot that is smack dab in the middle of the projections.
End of debate.
Yet you keep posting the same two charts, both debunked bullshit, over and over again.
I don't know how to plot points on a graph? Hmm ... it seems to me this is an area you should have avoided.
Let's look at your predictions. You claimed that an updated version of the IPCC graph with the HadCRUT numbers would have reported the anomaly for 2014 as 0.68 degrees: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5300753&viewfull=1#post5300753
That seems like quite a jump from the anomaly in 2010.
I have accused you of predicting an increase of 0.18 degrees C from 2010 to 2014, based on the fact it appears the anomaly on the IPCC graph was 0.5 degrees C.
Having explored this further, it's not entirely clear to me what the 2010 number is on the graph, since the graph was being circulated around the time that the Hadley Centre switched its numbers from HadCRUT3 to HadCRUT4 (https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/hadcrut4-v-hadcrut3/). But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the number was the HadCRUT4 anomaly of 0.54 degrees C.
So, if that's the 2010 anomaly, then you were only predicting an increase of 0.14 degrees C -- much more reasonable.
Or maybe not.
The HadCRUT numbers have been adjusted again, but the current anomaly for 2014 has been recorded as 0.56 degrees C (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/) -- an increase of only 0.02 degrees C over the 2010 number. Not exactly the 0.14 degrees C increase that you predicted.
In fact, your prediction was seven times larger than the recorded temperature anomaly.
The only other people who make predictions like that are Emma Thompson and Groggy.
I think you and the other members of the Emma Thompson Fan Club are the last ones who should be accusing me of not knowing how to plot points on a graph.
Interestingly, when I raised the point about how the IPCC rewrote the scientists' conclusions in 1995 that there was no evidence that man-made emissions affect all or part of the climate -- Basketcase responded by saying that was 20 years ago.AGW alarmists are the true deniers - of the scientific method, statistics and general logic. Many are fraud artists (Gore, Mann, Hansen are probably the 3 Musketeers in that respect). Or is it the 3 Stooges
groggy and basketcase are so tunnel visioned they refuse to acknowledge the corruption and deceit that have perpetuated this myth that humans are responsible for the warming of the Earth. They continue to discredit valid scientific studies disproving the theory, satellite temperature data which shows no warming in the troposphere since 1979, computer models that have been so wrong on their predictions and climategate emails which explicitly show the fraud and dishonesty of the IPCC.
Apparently, it was OK for the IPCC to be completely dishonest because that was 20 years ago.
Of course, the NASA news release with the lies about 2014 was only issued in January. But I guess you could say that was eight months ago. I'm sure a lot has changed since then.
"Up to date"?
Your chart only shows temperature anomalies to 2012. Do you know what year this is?
