Koch Brothers funded Climate Research. What they found? Oooh, that's gotta hurt.

[edthecynic]

I'm just going to tell the both of you once more.. they post graphs of anomalies for one reason.. To draw confusion. Anomalies do not mean anything in terms of average climate over a short term like they show and point to... What difference does it make if point A had 10 temperatures over the year that were not in its expected norm? All it does is show variability in that point, and if you collect 100,000 points all you show is variability in those points. And across 10-60 years it means even less in terms of proof of climate change other than to show its changing all the damn time...

jesus people some of you should know better by now....

Anomalies are the most accurate way of determining temperature trends, so it comes as no surprise that deniers deny anomalies.

HOW?

An anomaly is a deviance from an expected norm... What is the expected norm and how is it derived? 30 years? 50? 100? What does an expected norm at a certain point and time derived from even 100 years tell us other than it got colder or warmer at that place at a comparable time in the last 100 years? And what does 100 years tell us in terms of climate other than that it varies over time?

You freaking sheep don't ask the obvious, you are too busy saying "yes of course you are the experts" to even realize what an anomaly is and its significance or rather insignificance to actual climate trends...

Here we see again the CON$ervative redefining of words to control the language.

An anomaly is a deviation from a CALCULATED AVERAGE. As such it is the most accurate way to show a TREND.

October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.

 

[gslack]

Anomalies are the most accurate way of determining temperature trends, so it comes as no surprise that deniers deny anomalies.

HOW?

An anomaly is a deviance from an expected norm... What is the expected norm and how is it derived? 30 years? 50? 100? What does an expected norm at a certain point and time derived from even 100 years tell us other than it got colder or warmer at that place at a comparable time in the last 100 years? And what does 100 years tell us in terms of climate other than that it varies over time?

You freaking sheep don't ask the obvious, you are too busy saying "yes of course you are the experts" to even realize what an anomaly is and its significance or rather insignificance to actual climate trends...

Here we see again the CON$ervative redefining of words to control the language.

An anomaly is a deviation from a CALCULATED AVERAGE. As such it is the most accurate way to show a TREND.

October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.

LOL so an expected norm is not gotten from a calculated average?



My god man you are dumber than I thought...

anomaly - definition of anomaly by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

anomaly-

a·nom·a·ly (-nm-l)
n. pl. a·nom·a·lies
1. Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
2. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify: "Both men are anomalies: they have . . . likable personalities but each has made his reputation as a heavy" (David Pauly).
3. Astronomy The angular deviation, as observed from the sun, of a planet from its perihelion.

anomaly [əˈnɒməlɪ]
n pl -lies
1. something anomalous
2. deviation from the normal or usual order, type, etc.; irregularity (Astronomy)
3. (Astronomy) Astronomy
a. Also called true anomaly. the angle between a planet, the sun, and the previous perihelion of the planet
b. Also called eccentric anomaly. the angle between the periapsis of a particular point on a circle round the orbit as seen from the centre of the orbit. This point is obtained by producing a perpendicular to the major axis of the ellipse through the orbiting body until it reaches the circumference of the circle
c. Also called mean anomaly. the angle between the periapsis of an orbit and the position of an imaginary body orbiting at a constant angular speed and in the same period as the real orbiting body
4. (Earth Sciences / Geological Science) Geology
a. Also called gravity anomaly a deviation from the normal value of gravity at the earth's surface, caused by density differences at depth, for example those caused by a buried mineral body
b. Also called magnetic anomaly a magnetic field, for example one produced by a buried mineral body, that deviates from an expected or standard value, usually that of the earth's magnetic field

Thesaurus -

anomaly - deviation from the normal or common order or form or rule


Want more I can go get them... All of them seem to say deviation from the normal or the same thing....

Now who is making up definitions you little twerp?

 

[edthecynic]

HOW?

An anomaly is a deviance from an expected norm... What is the expected norm and how is it derived? 30 years? 50? 100? What does an expected norm at a certain point and time derived from even 100 years tell us other than it got colder or warmer at that place at a comparable time in the last 100 years? And what does 100 years tell us in terms of climate other than that it varies over time?

You freaking sheep don't ask the obvious, you are too busy saying "yes of course you are the experts" to even realize what an anomaly is and its significance or rather insignificance to actual climate trends...

Here we see again the CON$ervative redefining of words to control the language.

An anomaly is a deviation from a CALCULATED AVERAGE. As such it is the most accurate way to show a TREND.

October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.

LOL so an expected norm is not gotten from a calculated average?



My god man you are dumber than I thought...

Using the words "expected norm" implies a preconceived bias in the expectations rather than a unique calculation for each temperature station, which is why you dishonestly used it. Just like your dishonestly using dictionary definitions for scientific terms.

The fact remains that anomalies are the most accurate way to calculate temperature trends which is why deniers have to demonize them. Accurate data is the worst nightmare for deniers.

 

[gslack]

Here we see again the CON$ervative redefining of words to control the language.

An anomaly is a deviation from a CALCULATED AVERAGE. As such it is the most accurate way to show a TREND.

October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.

LOL so an expected norm is not gotten from a calculated average?



My god man you are dumber than I thought...

Using the words "expected norm" implies a preconceived bias in the expectations rather than a unique calculation for each temperature station, which is why you dishonestly used it. Just like your dishonestly using dictionary definitions for scientific terms.

The fact remains that anomalies are the most accurate way to calculate temperature trends which is why deniers have to demonize them. Accurate data is the worst nightmare for deniers.

DO NOT EDIT QUOTES OF MY POST!!!!!!

editing quotes of peoples post is against the rules dummy, keep it up and you will be noticed by a mod..... The board software may shorten long lists of quotes, but it will not edit direct quotes of with no other quotes in it...

You just got busted doing it again... keep it up and soon we won't have to deal with your asinine trolling much longer...

 

[gslack]

One more time for the quoted post editing tool who thinks he can decide what anomaly means...

LOL so an expected norm is not gotten from a calculated average?



My god man you are dumber than I thought...

anomaly - definition of anomaly by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

anomaly-

a·nom·a·ly (-nm-l)
n. pl. a·nom·a·lies
1. Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
2. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify: "Both men are anomalies: they have . . . likable personalities but each has made his reputation as a heavy" (David Pauly).
3. Astronomy The angular deviation, as observed from the sun, of a planet from its perihelion.

anomaly [əˈnɒməlɪ]
n pl -lies
1. something anomalous
2. deviation from the normal or usual order, type, etc.; irregularity (Astronomy)
3. (Astronomy) Astronomy
a. Also called true anomaly. the angle between a planet, the sun, and the previous perihelion of the planet
b. Also called eccentric anomaly. the angle between the periapsis of a particular point on a circle round the orbit as seen from the centre of the orbit. This point is obtained by producing a perpendicular to the major axis of the ellipse through the orbiting body until it reaches the circumference of the circle
c. Also called mean anomaly. the angle between the periapsis of an orbit and the position of an imaginary body orbiting at a constant angular speed and in the same period as the real orbiting body
4. (Earth Sciences / Geological Science) Geology
a. Also called gravity anomaly a deviation from the normal value of gravity at the earth's surface, caused by density differences at depth, for example those caused by a buried mineral body
b. Also called magnetic anomaly a magnetic field, for example one produced by a buried mineral body, that deviates from an expected or standard value, usually that of the earth's magnetic field

Thesaurus -

anomaly - deviation from the normal or common order or form or rule


Want more I can go get them... All of them seem to say deviation from the normal or the same thing....

Now who is making up definitions you little twerp?



Edit quotes of my post again and I will repost this... You sir are busted again being an idiot and talking out of your ass...

 

[IanC]

The purpose of the graph was to discredit BEST because it does not support the deniers' preconceived bias. That is the only reason a 5 year average is used for measuring anomalies. You never use less than 20 years as an average to measure an anomaly against, and there certainly was a lot more than 20 years worth of data. You can use 5 years for smoothing, but never for anomalies.

here is a part of a graph from BEST's figure #8 in the averaging paper.

BEST is grey, NOAA is red, GISS is green and HadCru blue. unfortunately satellite data is not included but it is known to be lower than the other data sets. there is the same spread in the last 30 years with BEST being the warmest. is BEST just trying to discredit itself?

read the story about whether BEST seems to support the CO2 theory or the solar variation theory or neither at....
Explaining Muller vs. Muller: is BEST blissfully unaware of cosmic-ray-cloud theory? | Watts Up With That?

Gee, what a surprise, Anthony Watts' dishonest site again.

Weren't there two graphs in figure 8?
Why yes, yes there were. Why did YOU choose to post only one?

From the Watts site:

Wow, compared to the evidence provided by the other temperature records, BEST’s full sample really favors the CO2 theory over this critical period. Thus on the only part of the temperature record that is probative, BEST displays two strongly contradictory graphs without a word of commentary.

Well, let's see how many words of non-commentary there were in the BEST report.

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Averaging_Process

In Figure 8, we compare our land reconstruction to the land reconstructions published by
the three other groups (results updated online, methods described by Brohan et al. 2006; Smith et
al. 2008; Hansen et al. 2010). Overall our global land average is similar to those obtained by
these prior efforts. There is some disagreement amongst the three groups, and our result is most
similar overall to NOAA’s work. The differences apparent in Figure 8 may partially reflect
difference in source data, but they probably primarily reflect differences in methodology.
The GHCN dataset used in the current analysis overlaps strongly with the data used by
other groups. The GHCN was developed by NOAA and is the sole source of the land-based
weather station data in their temperature reconstructions (but does not include the ocean data also
used in their global temperature analyses). In addition, GISS uses GHCN as the source for ~85%
of the time series in their analysis. The remaining 15% of GISS stations are almost exclusively
US and Antarctic sites that they have added / updated, and hence would be expected to have
somewhat limited impact due to their limited geographic coverage. HadCRU maintains a separate data set from GHCN for their climate analysis work though approximately 60% of the
GHCN stations also appear in HadCRU.

Figure 8. Comparison of the Berkeley Average to existing land-only averages reported by the
three major temperature groups. The upper panel shows 12-month moving averages for the four
reconstructions, and a gray band corresponding to the 95% uncertainty range on the Berkeley
average. The lower panel shows each of the prior averages minus the Berkeley average, as well
as the Berkeley average uncertainty. As noted in the text, there is a much larger disagreement
among the existing groups when considering land-only data than when comparing the global
averages. HadCRU and GISS have systematically lower trends than Berkeley and NOAA. In
part, this is likely to reflect differences in how “land-only” has been defined by the three groups.
Berkeley is very similar to the NOAA result during the twentieth century and slightly lower than
all three groups during the 19th century.

The GISS and HadCRU work produce lower land-average temperature trends for the late
part of the 20th century. In this regard, our analysis suggests a degree of global land-surface
warming during the anthropogenic era that is consistent with prior work (e.g. NOAA) but on the
high end of the existing range of reconstructions. We note that the difference in land average
trends amongst the prior groups has not generally been discussed in the literature. In part, the
spread in existing land-only records may have received little attention because the three groups
have greater agreement when considering global averages that include oceans (Figure 1). We
strongly suspect that some of the difference in land-only averages is an artifact of the different
approaches to defining “land-only” temperature analyses. Our analysis and that produced by
NOAA explicitly construct an average that only considers temperature values over land.

However, that is not the only possible approach. The literature suggests that the GISS “land-
only” data product may be generated by measuring the “global” temperature fields using only
data reported over land. In this scenario temperature records in coastal regions and on islands
would be extrapolated over the oceans to create a “global” field using only land data. Whether or
not this approach was actually used is unclear from the literature, but it would result in an
overweighting of coastal and oceanic stations. This would in turn lead to a reduction in the
calculated “land” trend in a way that is qualitatively consistent with the difference observed in
Figure 8.
Though we are similar to NOAA for most of the 20th century, we note that we have
somewhat lower average temperatures during the period 1880-1930. This gives us a slightly
larger overall trend for the 20th century than any of the three groups. Most of that difference
comes from the more uncertain early period. In previous work, it has been argued that
instrumentation changes may have led to an artificial warm bias in the early 1900s (Folland et al.
2001, Parker 1994). To the degree that our reconstruction from that era is systematically lower
than prior work (Figure 8), it could be that our methods are more resistant to biases due to those
instrumental changes.

BTW, the graph you posted is a graph of the DEVIATION of NOAA, GISS and HadCru data in the top graph of anomalies from the BEST data in the top graph of anomalies, not a second contradictory graph of anomaly data as you and the author Rawls seem to think!

the Rawls graph only shows a 0.2C difference between BEST and CRU/GISS. the BEST graphs shows about 0.3C . why do you guys disavow the obvious?

 

[gslack]

Here we see again the CON$ervative redefining of words to control the language.

An anomaly is a deviation from a CALCULATED AVERAGE. As such it is the most accurate way to show a TREND.

October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.

LOL so an expected norm is not gotten from a calculated average?



My god man you are dumber than I thought...

Using the words "expected norm" implies a preconceived bias in the expectations rather than a unique calculation for each temperature station, which is why you dishonestly used it. Just like your dishonestly using dictionary definitions for scientific terms.

The fact remains that anomalies are the most accurate way to calculate temperature trends which is why deniers have to demonize them. Accurate data is the worst nightmare for deniers.

I am so sorry but I just have to do this....

Ed said above...

" Just like your dishonestly using dictionary definitions for scientific terms."

So he doesn't trust the dictionaries to give a good definition for the scientific term "anomaly". I assumed he meant explicitly in terms of climate research.. So would a climate research sites definition be good enough? How about the NOAA ? They have a glossary of terms on their site.. here is their take on it...

Glossary - NOAA's National Weather Service

NOAA Glossary

"Anomaly
The deviation of a measurable unit (e.g., temperature or precipitation) over a period in a given region from the long-term average, often the thirty-year mean, for that region."

Oh man they say the same thing... Wow imagine that.. ED, you can apologize to me anytime you are ready...

 

[edthecynic]

Originally Posted by gslack
An anomaly is a deviance from an expected norm...

LOL so an expected norm is not gotten from a calculated average?



My god man you are dumber than I thought...

Using the words "expected norm" implies a preconceived bias in the expectations rather than a unique calculation for each temperature station, which is why you dishonestly used it. Just like your dishonestly using dictionary definitions for scientific terms.

The fact remains that anomalies are the most accurate way to calculate temperature trends which is why deniers have to demonize them. Accurate data is the worst nightmare for deniers.

I am so sorry but I just have to do this....

Ed said above...

" Just like your dishonestly using dictionary definitions for scientific terms."

So he doesn't trust the dictionaries to give a good definition for the scientific term "anomaly". I assumed he meant explicitly in terms of climate research.. So would a climate research sites definition be good enough? How about the NOAA ? They have a glossary of terms on their site.. here is their take on it...

Glossary - NOAA's National Weather Service

NOAA Glossary

"Anomaly
The deviation of a measurable unit (e.g., temperature or precipitation) over a period in a given region from the long-term average, often the thirty-year mean, for that region."

Oh man they say the same thing... Wow imagine that.. ED, you can apologize to me anytime you are ready...

This is the problem with CON$, they pretend to see what isn't there rather than admit the truth. YOU are the only person who sees the words "expected norm" in that definition.

 

[edthecynic]

here is a part of a graph from BEST's figure #8 in the averaging paper.

BEST is grey, NOAA is red, GISS is green and HadCru blue. unfortunately satellite data is not included but it is known to be lower than the other data sets. there is the same spread in the last 30 years with BEST being the warmest. is BEST just trying to discredit itself?

read the story about whether BEST seems to support the CO2 theory or the solar variation theory or neither at....
Explaining Muller vs. Muller: is BEST blissfully unaware of cosmic-ray-cloud theory? | Watts Up With That?

Gee, what a surprise, Anthony Watts' dishonest site again.

Weren't there two graphs in figure 8?
Why yes, yes there were. Why did YOU choose to post only one?

From the Watts site:
Well, let's see how many words of non-commentary there were in the BEST report.

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Averaging_Process

In Figure 8, we compare our land reconstruction to the land reconstructions published by
the three other groups (results updated online, methods described by Brohan et al. 2006; Smith et
al. 2008; Hansen et al. 2010). Overall our global land average is similar to those obtained by
these prior efforts. There is some disagreement amongst the three groups, and our result is most
similar overall to NOAA’s work. The differences apparent in Figure 8 may partially reflect
difference in source data, but they probably primarily reflect differences in methodology.
The GHCN dataset used in the current analysis overlaps strongly with the data used by
other groups. The GHCN was developed by NOAA and is the sole source of the land-based
weather station data in their temperature reconstructions (but does not include the ocean data also
used in their global temperature analyses). In addition, GISS uses GHCN as the source for ~85%
of the time series in their analysis. The remaining 15% of GISS stations are almost exclusively
US and Antarctic sites that they have added / updated, and hence would be expected to have
somewhat limited impact due to their limited geographic coverage. HadCRU maintains a separate data set from GHCN for their climate analysis work though approximately 60% of the
GHCN stations also appear in HadCRU.

Figure 8. Comparison of the Berkeley Average to existing land-only averages reported by the
three major temperature groups. The upper panel shows 12-month moving averages for the four
reconstructions, and a gray band corresponding to the 95% uncertainty range on the Berkeley
average. The lower panel shows each of the prior averages minus the Berkeley average, as well
as the Berkeley average uncertainty. As noted in the text, there is a much larger disagreement
among the existing groups when considering land-only data than when comparing the global
averages. HadCRU and GISS have systematically lower trends than Berkeley and NOAA. In
part, this is likely to reflect differences in how “land-only” has been defined by the three groups.
Berkeley is very similar to the NOAA result during the twentieth century and slightly lower than
all three groups during the 19th century.

The GISS and HadCRU work produce lower land-average temperature trends for the late
part of the 20th century. In this regard, our analysis suggests a degree of global land-surface
warming during the anthropogenic era that is consistent with prior work (e.g. NOAA) but on the
high end of the existing range of reconstructions. We note that the difference in land average
trends amongst the prior groups has not generally been discussed in the literature. In part, the
spread in existing land-only records may have received little attention because the three groups
have greater agreement when considering global averages that include oceans (Figure 1). We
strongly suspect that some of the difference in land-only averages is an artifact of the different
approaches to defining “land-only” temperature analyses. Our analysis and that produced by
NOAA explicitly construct an average that only considers temperature values over land.

However, that is not the only possible approach. The literature suggests that the GISS “land-
only” data product may be generated by measuring the “global” temperature fields using only
data reported over land. In this scenario temperature records in coastal regions and on islands
would be extrapolated over the oceans to create a “global” field using only land data. Whether or
not this approach was actually used is unclear from the literature, but it would result in an
overweighting of coastal and oceanic stations. This would in turn lead to a reduction in the
calculated “land” trend in a way that is qualitatively consistent with the difference observed in
Figure 8.
Though we are similar to NOAA for most of the 20th century, we note that we have
somewhat lower average temperatures during the period 1880-1930. This gives us a slightly
larger overall trend for the 20th century than any of the three groups. Most of that difference
comes from the more uncertain early period. In previous work, it has been argued that
instrumentation changes may have led to an artificial warm bias in the early 1900s (Folland et al.
2001, Parker 1994). To the degree that our reconstruction from that era is systematically lower
than prior work (Figure 8), it could be that our methods are more resistant to biases due to those
instrumental changes.

BTW, the graph you posted is a graph of the DEVIATION of NOAA, GISS and HadCru data in the top graph of anomalies from the BEST data in the top graph of anomalies, not a second contradictory graph of anomaly data as you and the author Rawls seem to think!

the Rawls graph only shows a 0.2C difference between BEST and CRU/GISS. the BEST graphs shows about 0.3C . why do you guys disavow the obvious?

There is no Rawls graph, both graphs are from BEST. The one you posted, the bottom graph from figure 8, is as you now admit the difference between the BEST data and the NOAA, GISS and HadCru data. That is why the BEST data is graphed as the center point throughout the graph. The graph did not "set all the graphs to the same absolute temp at a specific point (normalization)" as you claimed. It is not a contradicting graph of anomalies to the top graph in figure 8 as Rawls claims and you swallowed. The top graph in figure 8, the one you left out, is the only graph of anomalies in figure 8.

Come on, admit it, you got snookered by Rawls because you want to believe the BEST data is tainted and you will swallow without a second thought anything that supports what you desire to believe.

 

[IanC]

figure 8 BEST-

the top half graph shows a 0.3C difference between BEST and the lower data sets from the period of 1980-200?. but it is difficult to see because of the short Y axis.
the bottom graph shows a 0.3C difference between BEST and the lower data sets at 200?. still hard to see because BEST is a gray uncertainty and the X axis is poorly marked.

easy to read graph with added satellite data. turns out that BEST is only about 0.2C different from the land based data sets and 0.3C different from the satellite data.

which graph is easier to pick out the trend?


here's another graph for you.

how does this graph of the last decade of BEST data gibe with Muller's specific declaration that there has been no slowdown in warming? no wonder Judy Curry is so pissed at the stupid things he has been saying.

 

[gslack]

Originally Posted by gslack
An anomaly is a deviance from an expected norm...

Using the words "expected norm" implies a preconceived bias in the expectations rather than a unique calculation for each temperature station, which is why you dishonestly used it. Just like your dishonestly using dictionary definitions for scientific terms.

The fact remains that anomalies are the most accurate way to calculate temperature trends which is why deniers have to demonize them. Accurate data is the worst nightmare for deniers.

I am so sorry but I just have to do this....

Ed said above...

" Just like your dishonestly using dictionary definitions for scientific terms."

So he doesn't trust the dictionaries to give a good definition for the scientific term "anomaly". I assumed he meant explicitly in terms of climate research.. So would a climate research sites definition be good enough? How about the NOAA ? They have a glossary of terms on their site.. here is their take on it...

Glossary - NOAA's National Weather Service

NOAA Glossary

"Anomaly
The deviation of a measurable unit (e.g., temperature or precipitation) over a period in a given region from the long-term average, often the thirty-year mean, for that region."

Oh man they say the same thing... Wow imagine that.. ED, you can apologize to me anytime you are ready...

This is the problem with CON$, they pretend to see what isn't there rather than admit the truth. YOU are the only person who sees the words "expected norm" in that definition.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

How do you get a anomaly? Come on smart guy tell us how they get an anomaly without using words that mean the same thing as "expected norm"..

Come genius first you claimed I was wrong in my explanation of anomaly. So i got definitions from a dictionary. Then you cried because they weren't from a scientific source, So I went and got one from a scientific source. And now you are crying about the choice of words that mean the same thing?

AGAIN, just as you said before, "you don't get to decide what words mean."



Busted again being an idiot...