AGW Cult Explains it all: Baseline

[Billy_Bob]

Base Line is the average of a predefined set of temperatures.

IE; the daily morning temp at 0600 every day from the same station for 30 years. this allows us to assess further temperatures of that site as anomalies.

What NOAA has done is change the base line by changing the base period which creates the average that thermometer readings are judge by. In doing so they reduced the degrees of the anomaly and made the 4 deg F actual temp disparity appear as if it was below the average anomaly and call it an insignificant rise..

Basically it is a lame attempt to change the facts into propaganda for the cause.. It does not change the facts of the real temperature but it makes the issue very cloudy and creates doubt where there should be none.

IF your read the original article it was an averaged temperature for one year which equaled 62.4 deg F. and it was done the same for each of the previous years. What became fodder was the fact that 2015 was far cooler at 58.2 deg F average temperature showing that the year had cooled significantly in comparison. They scrambled to change the base line to reduce the overall anomaly, which it did not do, it only changed the averages base line making one year +2 deg F and the other -2deg F making it appear as if it was nothing out of the ordinary..

And now it has been removed from NOAA's site, conveniently.. But my email copies are in tact, so they will never truly go away..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Base Line is the average of a predefined set of temperatures.

IE; the daily morning temp at 0600 every day from the same station for 30 years. this allows us to assess further temperatures of that site as anomalies.

What NOAA has done is change the base line by changing the base period which creates the average that thermometer readings are judge by. In doing so they reduced the degrees of the anomaly and made the 4 deg F actual temp disparity appear as if it was below the average anomaly and call it an insignificant rise..

Basically it is a lame attempt to change the facts into propaganda for the cause.. It does not change the facts of the real temperature but it makes the issue very cloudy and creates doubt where there should be none.

IF your read the original article it was an averaged temperature for one year which equaled 62.4 deg F. and it was done the same for each of the previous years. What became fodder was the fact that 2015 was far cooler at 58.2 deg F average temperature showing that the year had cooled significantly in comparison. They scrambled to change the base line to reduce the overall anomaly, which it did not do, it only changed the averages base line making one year +2 deg F and the other -2deg F making it appear as if it was nothing out of the ordinary..

And now it has been removed from NOAA's site, conveniently.. But my email copies are in tact, so they will never truly go away..

So when the had it accurate to a hundredth of a degree, it was all bullshit?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Base Line is the average of a predefined set of temperatures.

IE; the daily morning temp at 0600 every day from the same station for 30 years. this allows us to assess further temperatures of that site as anomalies.

What NOAA has done is change the base line by changing the base period which creates the average that thermometer readings are judge by. In doing so they reduced the degrees of the anomaly and made the 4 deg F actual temp disparity appear as if it was below the average anomaly and call it an insignificant rise..

Basically it is a lame attempt to change the facts into propaganda for the cause.. It does not change the facts of the real temperature but it makes the issue very cloudy and creates doubt where there should be none.

IF your read the original article it was an averaged temperature for one year which equaled 62.4 deg F. and it was done the same for each of the previous years. What became fodder was the fact that 2015 was far cooler at 58.2 deg F average temperature showing that the year had cooled significantly in comparison. They scrambled to change the base line to reduce the overall anomaly, which it did not do, it only changed the averages base line making one year +2 deg F and the other -2deg F making it appear as if it was nothing out of the ordinary..

And now it has been removed from NOAA's site, conveniently.. But my email copies are in tact, so they will never truly go away..

So when the had it accurate to a hundredth of a degree, it was all bullshit?

In a word... NO!

Statistical theroy suggests that when you average a large set of numbers, the overall accuracy of the set is more precise. There are mathematical models which suggest this. Hairball and a few others argue this point to death.

HOWEVER; Accuracy is only as good as your worst piece of equipment.

Basically you can apply error bars the widths of your worst piece of equipment used to collect that data. when you see people claiming this was hotter by 100ths of a degree all you need to ask is what is the worst piece of equipment error boundaries? We know that NOAA still uses thermometers which have a +/- 0.5 deg F the majority of their data collection is good to +/-0.2 deg C (coincidentally almost exactly the same when converted).

The point being, lop off the crap beyond the error bars.. its essentially useless and can not be support by factual data. And yes you can call it Bull Shit..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Base Line is the average of a predefined set of temperatures.

IE; the daily morning temp at 0600 every day from the same station for 30 years. this allows us to assess further temperatures of that site as anomalies.

What NOAA has done is change the base line by changing the base period which creates the average that thermometer readings are judge by. In doing so they reduced the degrees of the anomaly and made the 4 deg F actual temp disparity appear as if it was below the average anomaly and call it an insignificant rise..

Basically it is a lame attempt to change the facts into propaganda for the cause.. It does not change the facts of the real temperature but it makes the issue very cloudy and creates doubt where there should be none.

IF your read the original article it was an averaged temperature for one year which equaled 62.4 deg F. and it was done the same for each of the previous years. What became fodder was the fact that 2015 was far cooler at 58.2 deg F average temperature showing that the year had cooled significantly in comparison. They scrambled to change the base line to reduce the overall anomaly, which it did not do, it only changed the averages base line making one year +2 deg F and the other -2deg F making it appear as if it was nothing out of the ordinary..

And now it has been removed from NOAA's site, conveniently.. But my email copies are in tact, so they will never truly go away..

So when the had it accurate to a hundredth of a degree, it was all bullshit?

In a word... NO!

Statistical theroy suggests that when you average a large set of numbers, the overall accuracy of the set is more precise. There are mathematical models which suggest this. Hairball and a few others argue this point to death.

HOWEVER; Accuracy is only as good as your worst piece of equipment.

Basically you can apply error bars the widths of your worst piece of equipment used to collect that data. when you see people claiming this was hotter by 100ths of a degree all you need to ask is what is the worst piece of equipment error boundaries? We know that NOAA still uses thermometers which have a +/- 0.5 deg F the majority of their data collection is good to +/-0.2 deg C (coincidentally almost exactly the same when converted).

The point being, lop off the crap beyond the error bars.. its essentially useless and can not be support by factual data. And yes you can call it Bull Shit..

So why was 1997 suddenly different?

 

[mamooth]

The paranoid whackaloon fantasy explanations of Billy and all the other circle-jerkers on this thread are, of course, totally wrong. Yet they're they're back again, shaking their tiny fists at the sky because the whole planet still correctly defines them as cult frauds.

Now, I've given the links to the science before. They were ignored. Go fig.

Jones et al (1999) Surface Air Temperature and its Changes Over the Past 150 Years.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/papers/Jones-etal-1999.pdf

The biggest change was in the grid weighting system and accounting for areas that hadn't been sampled in the past, changes in individual stations over the years, changes in sampling methods and frequencies, and the change from absolute temps to anomaly temps. All are explained in detail. If you want more handholding, my time is worth money. I educate those willing to learn for free, but I charge the pathologically dishonest for, so deniers will need to pay ahead with Paypal. Contact me for my tutoring fees.

Now, this thread does serve one useful purpose. The casual deniers, the ones tagging along just to fit in with TheParty, and who might recover eventually, they didn't show up. The ones who did come here to shout their paranoia to the world identify themselves as the most hardcore raving cult fanatics, the ones who have no hope of ever returning to normalcy, and therefore the ones that there's no point wasting time on.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The paranoid whackaloon fantasy explanations of Billy and all the other circle-jerkers on this thread are, of course, totally wrong. Yet they're they're back again, shaking their tiny fists at the sky because the whole planet still correctly defines them as cult frauds.

Now, I've given the links to the science before. They were ignored. Go fig.

Jones et al (1999) Surface Air Temperature and its Changes Over the Past 150 Years.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/papers/Jones-etal-1999.pdf

The biggest change was in the grid weighting system and accounting for areas that hadn't been sampled in the past, changes in individual stations over the years, changes in sampling methods and frequencies, and the change from absolute temps to anomaly temps. All are explained in detail. If you want more handholding, my time is worth money. I educate those willing to learn for free, but I charge the pathologically dishonest for, so deniers will need to pay ahead with Paypal. Contact me for my tutoring fees.

Now, this thread does serve one useful purpose. The casual deniers, the ones tagging along just to fit in with TheParty, and who might recover eventually, they didn't show up. The ones who did come here to shout their paranoia to the world identify themselves as the most hardcore raving cult fanatics, the ones who have no hope of ever returning to normalcy, and therefore the ones that there's no point wasting time on.

First, I'll bet anything you never read the paper you linked to, you just picked out a few words from a summary and posted them here.

Is this paper by Phil "Hide the Decline, Mann's Nature Trick, destroy your email" Jones? The just who said there's been no warming for 2 decades?

How did 1997 thermometers get it so wrong?

 

[mamooth]

HOWEVER; Accuracy is only as good as your worst piece of equipment.

You and Frank are still too proudly stupid to understand the difference between the error of an individual measurement, and the error of an average.

It's not a "model". It's very basic statistics that has been known for many centuries, and it's not that difficult. You two are just morons, and that's why you're ignored by all the grownups.

 

[mamooth]

First, I'll bet anything you never read the paper you linked to, you just picked out a few words from a summary and posted them here.

That's nice. You still have to pay if you want me to dumb it down to a level that you can understand. And as dumbing it down that much would take many days of effort, it wouldn't be cheap.

Is this paper by Phil "Hide the Decline, Mann's Nature Trick, destroy your email" Jones? The just who said there's been no warming for 2 decades?

How did 1997 thermometers get it so wrong?

Frank, You're now just a bitter cult loon having constant meltdowns on a message board. If you hadn't freely chosen such a deviant lifestyle, everyone would pity you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First, I'll bet anything you never read the paper you linked to, you just picked out a few words from a summary and posted them here.

That's nice. You still have to pay if you want me to dumb it down to a level that you can understand. And as dumbing it down that much would take many days of effort, it wouldn't be cheap.

Is this paper by Phil "Hide the Decline, Mann's Nature Trick, destroy your email" Jones? The just who said there's been no warming for 2 decades?

How did 1997 thermometers get it so wrong?

Frank, You're now just a bitter cult loon having constant meltdowns on a message board. If you hadn't freely chosen such a deviant lifestyle, everyone would pity you.

I knew you never read it.

 

[IanC]

The Jones' PDF does show the difficulty in deriving a meaningful temperature measurement for sea surface. 2.2 and 3.2 will give you an overview. Most of it is borrowed from Parker 1995.

 

[jc456]

HOWEVER; Accuracy is only as good as your worst piece of equipment.

You and Frank are still too proudly stupid to understand the difference between the error of an individual measurement, and the error of an average.

It's not a "model". It's very basic statistics that has been known for many centuries, and it's not that difficult. You two are just morons, and that's why you're ignored by all the grownups.

just curious if you have another 4 degree F baseline jump from one year to another? Funny how that baseline only affected one year eh? And that was the warmest. Even more funny.

 

[jc456]

First, I'll bet anything you never read the paper you linked to, you just picked out a few words from a summary and posted them here.

That's nice. You still have to pay if you want me to dumb it down to a level that you can understand. And as dumbing it down that much would take many days of effort, it wouldn't be cheap.

Is this paper by Phil "Hide the Decline, Mann's Nature Trick, destroy your email" Jones? The just who said there's been no warming for 2 decades?

How did 1997 thermometers get it so wrong?

Frank, You're now just a bitter cult loon having constant meltdowns on a message board. If you hadn't freely chosen such a deviant lifestyle, everyone would pity you.

I knew you never read it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

HOWEVER; Accuracy is only as good as your worst piece of equipment.

You and Frank are still too proudly stupid to understand the difference between the error of an individual measurement, and the error of an average.

It's not a "model". It's very basic statistics that has been known for many centuries, and it's not that difficult. You two are just morons, and that's why you're ignored by all the grownups.

First and foremost NOAA was citing yearly AVERAGES.. Not individual physical measurements.

 

[Billy_Bob]

HOWEVER; Accuracy is only as good as your worst piece of equipment.

You and Frank are still too proudly stupid to understand the difference between the error of an individual measurement, and the error of an average.

It's not a "model". It's very basic statistics that has been known for many centuries, and it's not that difficult. You two are just morons, and that's why you're ignored by all the grownups.

Incorrect, IT IS A MATHEMATICAL MODEL BASED ON THE LAWS OF PROBABILITY. Probability, meaning the chances that a temperature derived from a group has the potential to be accurate.. IT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS ACCURATE..

 

[jc456]

HOWEVER; Accuracy is only as good as your worst piece of equipment.

You and Frank are still too proudly stupid to understand the difference between the error of an individual measurement, and the error of an average.

It's not a "model". It's very basic statistics that has been known for many centuries, and it's not that difficult. You two are just morons, and that's why you're ignored by all the grownups.

Incorrect, IT IS A MATHEMATICAL MODEL BASED ON THE LAWS OF PROBABILITY. Probability, meaning the chances that a temperature derived from a group has the potential to be accurate.. IT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS ACCURATE..

too much. Thanks,