Wow - "Hide the Decline" Fully Exposed

[Oddball]

The irony is so thick I'm going to need to get a fresh bag of water softener pellets!

 

[saveliberty]

The irony is so thick I'm going to need to get a fresh bag of water softener pellets!

I got three studies that say the 87 studies are crap.

 

[Big Fitz]

You two obviously don't understand why real scientists use ANOMALIES!!!

I understand your cartoon. Fine job. Have a great day.

But you still don't understand anomalies, and you are not even curious enough to learn!!!!

Scientists are not stupid. They know how to collect data that is USEFUL. They know that thermometers are not all calibrated the same and if a station is neat black asphalt it will read warmer temps, etc. That's why they use anomalies and not direct temp numbers. They collect data for years at the same station and then create a 20 or 30 year average for that particular station location. They then record the DEVIATION up or down from that AVERAGE which is the ANOMALY. If the station is near a heat source the average will be higher but the deviation from that average will be accurate. If the deviations trend up there is warming going on.

That is why when you see a chart of anomalies, there is a zero point and the deviation from that zero point is plotted, not the specific temp.

I'm sorry, I don't believe for one second that these 'scientists' that blamed mankind on global warming had one iota of interest in declining to take any evidence that did agree with their presupposition even if they found out it was achieved falsely.

They are political hacks using science to cover for their personal greed and agenda backed up by opportunist looters looking to shake down the first world for global socialism.

They got busted and the word is spreading faster than they can spin their way out. A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth gets it's shoes on, that's true. But like every mope knows... you can't outrun the radio, and there's no justice like angry mob justice.

Put those metaphors in your mixmaster... LOL

 

[edthecynic]

I understand your cartoon. Fine job. Have a great day.

But you still don't understand anomalies, and you are not even curious enough to learn!!!!

Scientists are not stupid. They know how to collect data that is USEFUL. They know that thermometers are not all calibrated the same and if a station is neat black asphalt it will read warmer temps, etc. That's why they use anomalies and not direct temp numbers. They collect data for years at the same station and then create a 20 or 30 year average for that particular station location. They then record the DEVIATION up or down from that AVERAGE which is the ANOMALY. If the station is near a heat source the average will be higher but the deviation from that average will be accurate. If the deviations trend up there is warming going on.

That is why when you see a chart of anomalies, there is a zero point and the deviation from that zero point is plotted, not the specific temp.

Friend Ed. The anomaly chart you are showing is the mean difference of temperature over time. An average difference in annual temperture. We agree that is what is chart is supposed to show. It is wrong because they have not corrected data in many instances. You are using anomaly in two senses here. (Note bold sentence) I would call that one data correction. I looked on some other climate thread. One of them had a map and graph of the US stations and how extra warm many of them were due to being within 10 meters of a heat source. Sorry I didn't find it. It was really useful (well, useful if you agree with me)

No, the chart shows annual anomalies not average temp. And I am using anomalies in only one sense.

Again, if the station is near a heat source, the average temp the anomaly is measured against will be higher, but the deviation from that higher average will be an accurate anomaly.

 

[saveliberty]

In science, mean is one of the terms for average. (mean, median, mode) Please read the top of YOUR chart. Note the word mean.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If the station is near a heat source the average will be higher but the deviation from that average will be accurate.

Depends how close it it and what else is going on in the area. Too close, and all data will be useless.

 

[edthecynic]

In science, mean is one of the terms for average. (mean, median, mode) Please read the top of YOUR chart. Note the word mean.

Look at the left side of the chart. It not only says it is an anomaly chart, the scale is plotted from a deviation from a zero point, not a specific temp.
The top of the chart merely indicates it is a chart of the yearly average of the anomalies as opposed to a chart of a specific month's anomalies over the same time period.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

In science, mean is one of the terms for average. (mean, median, mode) Please read the top of YOUR chart. Note the word mean.

Now read the label on the Y-Axis

 

[saveliberty]

In science, mean is one of the terms for average. (mean, median, mode) Please read the top of YOUR chart. Note the word mean.

Now read the label on the Y-Axis

and how is the anomaly determined? It is some neutral temperature subtracted from the AVERAGE ANNUAL temperature. The result is the y-axis mark. We are agreeing on the chart. What I disagree with is:

1. The corrected data used to calculate the average annual temp. is bogus.
2. Placing data collectors near heat sources is a deliberate attempt to skew data.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

and how is the anomaly determined?

No idea. I asked that a while back and never got an answer.

2. Placing data collectors near heat sources is a deliberate attempt to skew data.

Is it a deliberate attempt or is it just stupidity?

 

[saveliberty]

and how is the anomaly determined?

No idea. I asked that a while back and never got an answer.

2. Placing data collectors near heat sources is a deliberate attempt to skew data.

Is it a deliberate attempt or is it just stupidity?

67% of the ones in the US are within 10 meters of a heat source. Sounds deliberate to me. Most scientific measuring devices I have ever seen, come with instructions on its use and set up. Common sense tells you to keep a thermometer away from an air conditioner condenser unit. Climatologists have some involvement with these stations. Are you calling them stupid? Not sure I can defend against that one.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

'Common sense' is a misnomer.

And yes, I'm implying that many of the persons involved may be idiots.

 

[saveliberty]

'Common sense' is a misnomer.

And yes, I'm implying that many of the persons involved may be idiots.

Sadly yes on the common sense. I prefer well intentioned, misguided, somewhat unprincipled, over paid persons to idiots. But I'm not here to argue with you, so, sure idiots. We would know for sure if the directions to the data collection equipment had a lot of pictures, cartoons or drawings.

 

[Big Fitz]

You two obviously don't understand why real scientists use ANOMALIES!!!

I see. 69% of your info is bad, and they're just anomolies?

Or should this be chalked up to "That's just how we roll here."

...as long as it agrees with our conclusion, we'll shoehorn the hell out of science till it says what we want.

I'm sure you'd be hell with thumbscrews.

 

[Big Fitz]

'Common sense' is a misnomer.

And yes, I'm implying that many of the persons involved may be idiots.

I prefer to say "Common sense isn't".

It's neither common, and most people don't have the sense to use it either.

 

[edthecynic]

You two obviously don't understand why real scientists use ANOMALIES!!!

I understand your cartoon. Fine job. Have a great day.

But you still don't understand anomalies, and you are not even curious enough to learn!!!!

Scientists are not stupid. They know how to collect data that is USEFUL. They know that thermometers are not all calibrated the same and if a station is neat black asphalt it will read warmer temps, etc. That's why they use anomalies and not direct temp numbers. They collect data for years at the same station and then create a 20 or 30 year average for that particular station location. They then record the DEVIATION up or down from that AVERAGE which is the ANOMALY. If the station is near a heat source the average will be higher but the deviation from that average will be accurate. If the deviations trend up there is warming going on.

That is why when you see a chart of anomalies, there is a zero point and the deviation from that zero point is plotted, not the specific temp.

and how is the anomaly determined? It is some neutral temperature subtracted from the AVERAGE ANNUAL temperature. The result is the y-axis mark. We are agreeing on the chart. What I disagree with is:

1. The corrected data used to calculate the average annual temp. is bogus.
2. Placing data collectors near heat sources is a deliberate attempt to skew data.

As I have said many times before, when CON$ know they're wrong, they play dumb.

I explained what an anomaly is just a few posts earlier. It's reposted above.
But your post is a perfect example of CON$ervative "logic." If CON$ don't understand something, they are free to dismiss it and assume any negative connotation, and that settles it. They never think of learning something about what they don't understand.

If a collector is near a heat source then then 20 to 30 year average temp for that particular collector will be high. So for the anomaly for that particular collector to have a positive value, the measured temp would have to be greater than that high average. If the collector was near a cold source, the 20 to 30 year average will be low. For the anomaly for that particular collector to have a positive value, the measured temp would have to be greater than that low average. So anomalies are independent of heat or cold sources and even the inaccuracies of the instrument used for the measurements.

Anomalies do not tell you the temp, they only tell you whether it is getting warmer or colder in that location over time, but they do that quite accurately.
GET IT????

 

[Borat]

Daily Mail: Special Investigation « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

yep that's pretty blatant. thats how STUPID they think we are. and in case of most of you people - they're right.

that's how they can pull an inside job like 9-11 in front of your face and you will simply say "well TV says it was Saddam so it must have been"

if mainstream media never reported on climategate, if they simply chose not to cover it - like they choose not to cover thousands of other stories - you would still think anthropogenic global warming was real.

and you would still be laughing at us "crazies" who knew it was a scam all along.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I understand your cartoon. Fine job. Have a great day.

But you still don't understand anomalies, and you are not even curious enough to learn!!!!

Scientists are not stupid. They know how to collect data that is USEFUL. They know that thermometers are not all calibrated the same and if a station is neat black asphalt it will read warmer temps, etc. That's why they use anomalies and not direct temp numbers. They collect data for years at the same station and then create a 20 or 30 year average for that particular station location. They then record the DEVIATION up or down from that AVERAGE which is the ANOMALY. If the station is near a heat source the average will be higher but the deviation from that average will be accurate. If the deviations trend up there is warming going on.

That is why when you see a chart of anomalies, there is a zero point and the deviation from that zero point is plotted, not the specific temp.

and how is the anomaly determined? It is some neutral temperature subtracted from the AVERAGE ANNUAL temperature. The result is the y-axis mark. We are agreeing on the chart. What I disagree with is:

1. The corrected data used to calculate the average annual temp. is bogus.
2. Placing data collectors near heat sources is a deliberate attempt to skew data.

As I have said many times before, when CON$ know they're wrong, they play dumb.

I explained what an anomaly is just a few posts earlier. It's reposted above.
But your post is a perfect example of CON$ervative "logic." If CON$ don't understand something, they are free to dismiss it and assume any negative connotation, and that settles it. They never think of learning something about what they don't understand.

If a collector is near a heat source then then 20 to 30 year average temp for that particular collector will be high. So for the anomaly for that particular collector to have a positive value, the measured temp would have to be greater than that high average. If the collector was near a cold source, the 20 to 30 year average will be low. For the anomaly for that particular collector to have a positive value, the measured temp would have to be greater than that low average. So anomalies are independent of heat or cold sources and even the inaccuracies of the instrument used for the measurements.

Anomalies do not tell you the temp, they only tell you whether it is getting warmer or colder in that location over time, but they do that quite accurately.
GET IT????

And the Ice caps on Mars are melting because....?

 

[saveliberty]

...and how do they know if it is warmer or colder Ed? THEY TAKE TEMPERATURE READINGS AND NOTE HOW MUCH HIGHER OR LOWER THE TEMPERATURE IS. I have tried to be nice to you about your apparent stupidity on this subject. There is no second instrument readings recorded to verify the first instruments accuracy. If there is a heat source too close it just gets included or a subjective adjustment is made by the scientist. Assuming no changes near the instrument you would be right on recording that difference. Most places are going to change in a twenty to thirty year time frame. A fence, wall, new building, old structure taken down, change an a/c unit location, install a larger unit or more efficient one, tree grows or is cut down, parking lot is placed near the instrument. I don't have time to explain all of this to you. 67% of these units in the US are within 10 meters of a heat source. The climatologists know this and is on purpose to skew results.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data" -- Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.