AGW Cult Explains it all

[edthecynic]

Because it renders the accuracy of the individual thermometer meaningless as long as you use the same thermometer.
DUH!

how do you figure? If the thermometer is one degree different and that is one degree change is used, what's the difference? Isn't it the same degree up or down?

Not when using anomalies, which is why scientists are smart enough to use them.

Anomalies use the 30 year average of that thermometer to measure the DEVIATION from that average. So the accuracy of the individual thermometer has no effect on the deviation from the thermometer's average.

they need the thermometer dufass to add the change to the average. What a stupid tool you are.

And BTW, everyday there is a new average. Every flippin day.

Again, proof of the utter and complete stupidity of deniers.
Thank you.

so you still don't get it eh?

Thank you again.

 

[jc456]

how do you figure? If the thermometer is one degree different and that is one degree change is used, what's the difference? Isn't it the same degree up or down?

Not when using anomalies, which is why scientists are smart enough to use them.

Anomalies use the 30 year average of that thermometer to measure the DEVIATION from that average. So the accuracy of the individual thermometer has no effect on the deviation from the thermometer's average.

they need the thermometer dufass to add the change to the average. What a stupid tool you are.

And BTW, everyday there is a new average. Every flippin day.

Again, proof of the utter and complete stupidity of deniers.
Thank you.

so you still don't get it eh?

Thank you again.

ah no, thank you. you have no idea what you are talking about and the failure you make is thinking that if you just post up nonsense you look smart. Nope you look like you're posting up nonsense.

 

[mamooth]

all readings to the whole number

4,4,5 the avg is 4.333333333333333....

how many digits are significant?

That depends on the error.

if there are 1000 data points with an avg of 4.33333333
how many digits are significant?

That also depends on the error.

if there are 1,000,000 data points with an avg of 4.3333333
how many digits are significant?

The same.

if you need to convert from degreesF to degreesC, how many working digits do you use? how many significant digits in the final answer. did the conversion have an effect?

You gave us a problem without enough information to determine an answer, and didn't realize it. That's because, like almost every denier, you fail at basic statistics.

Every denier on this thread is proudly displaying their Dunning-Kruger syndrome. That is, they're too stupid to grasp that they're stupid. There's also some serious narcissism at work. A normal person, upon finding the world disagrees with them, will conclude the most likely thing is that they themselves are wrong, and therefore they should seek to educate themselves prior to spouting any crazy accusations. Deniers? They consider themselves to be absolutely infallible and incapable of error, so when the world disagrees with them, they declare the only possible explanation is that there's a global plot against them.

I posted this on the other thread, and got no response. Let's try it again. It's statistics so simple, even a denier should be able to grasp it.

You have the following data set of independent temperature readings.

13, 15, 10, 14, 12

The error on each reading is 0.50. The error is gaussian.

What's the average temperature, and what's the error of the average?

 

[edthecynic]

Not when using anomalies, which is why scientists are smart enough to use them.

Anomalies use the 30 year average of that thermometer to measure the DEVIATION from that average. So the accuracy of the individual thermometer has no effect on the deviation from the thermometer's average.

they need the thermometer dufass to add the change to the average. What a stupid tool you are.

And BTW, everyday there is a new average. Every flippin day.

Again, proof of the utter and complete stupidity of deniers.
Thank you.

so you still don't get it eh?

Thank you again.

ah no, thank you. you have no idea what you are talking about and the failure you make is thinking that if you just post up nonsense you look smart. Nope you look like you're posting up nonsense.

It only looks like nonsense to people so ignorant of science that they have no idea how anomalies can accurately demonstrate warming or cooling trends with uncalibrated thermometers.
So thank you yet again.

 

[jc456]

they need the thermometer dufass to add the change to the average. What a stupid tool you are.

And BTW, everyday there is a new average. Every flippin day.

Again, proof of the utter and complete stupidity of deniers.
Thank you.

so you still don't get it eh?

Thank you again.

ah no, thank you. you have no idea what you are talking about and the failure you make is thinking that if you just post up nonsense you look smart. Nope you look like you're posting up nonsense.

It only looks like nonsense to people so ignorant of science that they have no idea how anomalies can accurately demonstrate warming or cooling trends with uncalibrated thermometers.
So thank you yet again.

and still failing. Still trying hard, and yet, yeppers... fail.

enlighten us on where the figures come from

 

[edthecynic]

Again, proof of the utter and complete stupidity of deniers.
Thank you.

so you still don't get it eh?

Thank you again.

ah no, thank you. you have no idea what you are talking about and the failure you make is thinking that if you just post up nonsense you look smart. Nope you look like you're posting up nonsense.

It only looks like nonsense to people so ignorant of science that they have no idea how anomalies can accurately demonstrate warming or cooling trends with uncalibrated thermometers.
So thank you yet again.

and still failing. Still trying hard, and yet, yeppers... fail.

Still ignorant.
Thank you.

 

[jc456]

so you still don't get it eh?

Thank you again.

ah no, thank you. you have no idea what you are talking about and the failure you make is thinking that if you just post up nonsense you look smart. Nope you look like you're posting up nonsense.

It only looks like nonsense to people so ignorant of science that they have no idea how anomalies can accurately demonstrate warming or cooling trends with uncalibrated thermometers.
So thank you yet again.

and still failing. Still trying hard, and yet, yeppers... fail.

Still ignorant.
Thank you.

hey, would you take a looky here, from one of your peer reviewers:

It was done with thermometers Frank. And did you have some reason to quote as much material as you did to ask that question? I don't see that you needed to quote anything.

looky look

AGW Cult Explains it all

It was done with thermometers Frank

Fk an a, a fkn thermometer. hmmmmm how can that be? the numbers are just anomalies right, they pull fkn numbers out of the sky according to your dumb ass.

 

[jc456]

excuse me but I'm laughing really hard at the dude Edthecynic. he needs to read the entire thread at
To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

 

[edthecynic]

Fk an a, a fkn thermometer. hmmmmm how can that be? the numbers are just anomalies right, they pull fkn numbers out of the sky according to your dumb ass.

Hey dumb ass, of course they use thermometers to measure anomalies, and nowhere did I say otherwise! You are just further proving your STUPIDITY. I said they do not use the RAW TEMPERATURES measured by the thermometers, but use an AVERAGE of the raw temperatures over 30 years to calculate the anomaly which accurately shows the temperature TREND independent of any calibration of the thermometers.

I can't thank you enough!!!


From the CRU site:
”Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries estimate average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90)….” In other words although measuring an average temperature is “biased”, measuring an average anomaly (deltaT) is not. Each monthly station anomaly is actually the difference between the measured monthly temperature and so-called “normal” monthly values. In the case of Hadley Cru the normal values are the 12 monthly averages from 1961 to 1990.

 

[jc456]

Fk an a, a fkn thermometer. hmmmmm how can that be? the numbers are just anomalies right, they pull fkn numbers out of the sky according to your dumb ass.

Hey dumb ass, of course they use thermometers to measure anomalies, and nowhere did I say otherwise! You are just further proving your STUPIDITY. I said they do not use the RAW TEMPERATURES measured by the thermometers, but use an AVERAGE of the raw temperatures over 30 years to calculate the anomaly which accurately shows the temperature TREND independent of any calibration of the thermometers.

I can't thank you enough!!!


From the CRU site:
”Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries estimate average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90)….” In other words although measuring an average temperature is “biased”, measuring an average anomaly (deltaT) is not. Each monthly station anomaly is actually the difference between the measured monthly temperature and so-called “normal” monthly values. In the case of Hadley Cru the normal values are the 12 monthly averages from 1961 to 1990.

nice flip

BTW, what is a formulae?

 

[edthecynic]

Fk an a, a fkn thermometer. hmmmmm how can that be? the numbers are just anomalies right, they pull fkn numbers out of the sky according to your dumb ass.

Hey dumb ass, of course they use thermometers to measure anomalies, and nowhere did I say otherwise! You are just further proving your STUPIDITY. I said they do not use the RAW TEMPERATURES measured by the thermometers, but use an AVERAGE of the raw temperatures over 30 years to calculate the anomaly which accurately shows the temperature TREND independent of any calibration of the thermometers.

I can't thank you enough!!!


From the CRU site:
”Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries estimate average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90)….” In other words although measuring an average temperature is “biased”, measuring an average anomaly (deltaT) is not. Each monthly station anomaly is actually the difference between the measured monthly temperature and so-called “normal” monthly values. In the case of Hadley Cru the normal values are the 12 monthly averages from 1961 to 1990.

nice flip

BTW, what is a formulae?

No flip, just your consistent stupidity, see the earlier post below.

And "formulae" is the plural of "formula."

Not when using anomalies, which is why scientists are smart enough to use them.

Anomalies use the 30 year average of that thermometer to measure the DEVIATION from that average. So the accuracy of the individual thermometer has no effect on the deviation from the thermometer's average.

 

[jc456]

Fk an a, a fkn thermometer. hmmmmm how can that be? the numbers are just anomalies right, they pull fkn numbers out of the sky according to your dumb ass.

Hey dumb ass, of course they use thermometers to measure anomalies, and nowhere did I say otherwise! You are just further proving your STUPIDITY. I said they do not use the RAW TEMPERATURES measured by the thermometers, but use an AVERAGE of the raw temperatures over 30 years to calculate the anomaly which accurately shows the temperature TREND independent of any calibration of the thermometers.

I can't thank you enough!!!


From the CRU site:
”Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries estimate average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90)….” In other words although measuring an average temperature is “biased”, measuring an average anomaly (deltaT) is not. Each monthly station anomaly is actually the difference between the measured monthly temperature and so-called “normal” monthly values. In the case of Hadley Cru the normal values are the 12 monthly averages from 1961 to 1990.

nice flip

BTW, what is a formulae?

No flip, just your consistent stupidity, see the earlier post below.

And "formulae" is the plural of "formula."

Not when using anomalies, which is why scientists are smart enough to use them.

Anomalies use the 30 year average of that thermometer to measure the DEVIATION from that average. So the accuracy of the individual thermometer has no effect on the deviation from the thermometer's average.

well how do they know the anomaly if they don't look at the thermometer, isn't that what I asked? and you stated:

what advantage does using the anomalies give them that the reading off the thermometer doesn't? I bet this is interesting.

Because it renders the accuracy of the individual thermometer meaningless as long as you use the same thermometer.
DUH!

how do you figure? If the thermometer is one degree different and that is one degree change is used, what's the difference? Isn't it the same degree up or down?

Not when using anomalies, which is why scientists are smart enough to use them.

Anomalies use the 30 year average of that thermometer to measure the DEVIATION from that average. So the accuracy of the individual thermometer has no effect on the deviation from the thermometer's average.

they need the thermometer dufass to add the change to the average. What a stupid tool you are.

And BTW, everyday there is a new average. Every flippin day.

Again, proof of the utter and complete stupidity of deniers.
Thank you.

So what is it, do they use thermometers or not? How is it they know the change if they don't use a thermometer? I mean, your flip was mar....velous

 

[edthecynic]

Fk an a, a fkn thermometer. hmmmmm how can that be? the numbers are just anomalies right, they pull fkn numbers out of the sky according to your dumb ass.

Hey dumb ass, of course they use thermometers to measure anomalies, and nowhere did I say otherwise! You are just further proving your STUPIDITY. I said they do not use the RAW TEMPERATURES measured by the thermometers, but use an AVERAGE of the raw temperatures over 30 years to calculate the anomaly which accurately shows the temperature TREND independent of any calibration of the thermometers.

I can't thank you enough!!!


From the CRU site:
”Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries estimate average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90)….” In other words although measuring an average temperature is “biased”, measuring an average anomaly (deltaT) is not. Each monthly station anomaly is actually the difference between the measured monthly temperature and so-called “normal” monthly values. In the case of Hadley Cru the normal values are the 12 monthly averages from 1961 to 1990.

nice flip

BTW, what is a formulae?

No flip, just your consistent stupidity, see the earlier post below.

And "formulae" is the plural of "formula."

Not when using anomalies, which is why scientists are smart enough to use them.

Anomalies use the 30 year average of that thermometer to measure the DEVIATION from that average. So the accuracy of the individual thermometer has no effect on the deviation from the thermometer's average.

well how do they know the anomaly if they don't look at the thermometer, isn't that what I asked? and you stated:

Because it renders the accuracy of the individual thermometer meaningless as long as you use the same thermometer.
DUH!

how do you figure? If the thermometer is one degree different and that is one degree change is used, what's the difference? Isn't it the same degree up or down?

Not when using anomalies, which is why scientists are smart enough to use them.

Anomalies use the 30 year average of that thermometer to measure the DEVIATION from that average. So the accuracy of the individual thermometer has no effect on the deviation from the thermometer's average.

they need the thermometer dufass to add the change to the average. What a stupid tool you are.

And BTW, everyday there is a new average. Every flippin day.

Again, proof of the utter and complete stupidity of deniers.
Thank you.

So what is it, do they use thermometers or not? How is it they know the change if they don't use a thermometer? I mean, your flip was mar....velous

You conveniently left out Billy Bob's post about the error range of the thermometers, which is why I pointed out that using anomalies solved that problem.

Again, at no time, except in your failure to understand anomalies, did I say they did not use thermometers, only that they did not use the raw temperature.

You just keep proving your stupidity.
Thank you so much.

In 1880 the thermometers used had error ranges of about +/-2 deg C (or a 4 degreee C range) anything in that range is of no statistical value.

Which is why REAL scientists are smart enough to use ANOMALIES rather than the raw temperature.
DUH!

what advantage does using the anomalies give them that the reading off the thermometer doesn't? I bet this is interesting.

 

[Billy_Bob]

In 1880 the thermometers used had error ranges of about +/-2 deg C (or a 4 degreee C range) anything in that range is of no statistical value.

Which is why REAL scientists are smart enough to use ANOMALIES rather than the raw temperature.
DUH!

what advantage does using the anomalies give them that the reading off the thermometer doesn't? I bet this is interesting.

Because it renders the accuracy of the individual thermometer meaningless as long as you use the same thermometer.
DUH!

Actually, NO!

Accurate temperate readings are necessary to determine the effect of any changes or influences that have changed to the system. Accuracy is paramount and is precisely why the AGW cult can figure out why it has not warmed in over 18 years 11 months.

All anomalies do, is allow us to create a common starting point to compare trends of differing sites. IE: a rural site vs a site in the middle of concrete and asphalt.

Saying that you can make accurate data irrelevant is powerful stupidity.

 

[Billy_Bob]

all readings to the whole number

4,4,5 the avg is 4.333333333333333....

how many digits are significant?

That depends on the error.

if there are 1000 data points with an avg of 4.33333333
how many digits are significant?

That also depends on the error.

if there are 1,000,000 data points with an avg of 4.3333333
how many digits are significant?

The same.

if you need to convert from degreesF to degreesC, how many working digits do you use? how many significant digits in the final answer. did the conversion have an effect?

You gave us a problem without enough information to determine an answer, and didn't realize it. That's because, like almost every denier, you fail at basic statistics.

Every denier on this thread is proudly displaying their Dunning-Kruger syndrome. That is, they're too stupid to grasp that they're stupid. There's also some serious narcissism at work. A normal person, upon finding the world disagrees with them, will conclude the most likely thing is that they themselves are wrong, and therefore they should seek to educate themselves prior to spouting any crazy accusations. Deniers? They consider themselves to be absolutely infallible and incapable of error, so when the world disagrees with them, they declare the only possible explanation is that there's a global plot against them.

I posted this on the other thread, and got no response. Let's try it again. It's statistics so simple, even a denier should be able to grasp it.

You have the following data set of independent temperature readings.

13, 15, 10, 14, 12

The error on each reading is 0.50. The error is gaussian.

What's the average temperature, and what's the error of the average?

Moron!

Tell me hairball, how do you magically make a +/-1 deg C error bar less than 0.01 Deg C?

 

[Billy_Bob]

In 1880 the thermometers used had error ranges of about +/-2 deg C (or a 4 degreee C range) anything in that range is of no statistical value.

Which is why REAL scientists are smart enough to use ANOMALIES rather than the raw temperature.
DUH!

what advantage does using the anomalies give them that the reading off the thermometer doesn't? I bet this is interesting.

Because it renders the accuracy of the individual thermometer meaningless as long as you use the same thermometer.
DUH!

how do you figure? If the thermometer is one degree different and that is one degree change is used, what's the difference? Isn't it the same degree up or down?

When using anomalies you can raise or lower the temp anomaly reading by what you choose as the zero base or the mean temperature for the period you select. Note that this is very ambiguous and can be changed by anyone to push an agenda. Anomalies are only good to evaluate station to station biases and comparing long term trends of multiple stations.

I still haven't got even one alarmist to tell what the "right" temperature of the earth is supposed to be. Until such time as we can pin them down with this number the goal post will continue to move as anomalies are really meaningless drivel. Don't get me wrong, they are a nice tool to root out lies and deceptions but they really dont mean squat.

 

[edthecynic]

In 1880 the thermometers used had error ranges of about +/-2 deg C (or a 4 degreee C range) anything in that range is of no statistical value.

Which is why REAL scientists are smart enough to use ANOMALIES rather than the raw temperature.
DUH!

what advantage does using the anomalies give them that the reading off the thermometer doesn't? I bet this is interesting.

Because it renders the accuracy of the individual thermometer meaningless as long as you use the same thermometer.
DUH!

Actually, NO!

Accurate temperate readings are necessary to determine the effect of any changes or influences that have changed to the system. Accuracy is paramount and is precisely why the AGW cult can figure out why it has not warmed in over 18 years 11 months.

All anomalies do, is allow us to create a common starting point to compare trends of differing sites. IE: a rural site vs a site in the middle of concrete and asphalt.

Saying that you can make accurate data irrelevant is powerful stupidity.

WOW!
You make JC look smart!

I said accurate thermometers are irrelevant, not readings.

And the not warming in 18 years is from inaccurate satellite computer models used to turn diurnal satellite drift and irradiance measurements into temperature data.

 

[edthecynic]

When using anomalies you can raise or lower the temp anomaly reading by what you choose as the zero base or the mean temperature for the period you select. Note that this is very ambiguous and can be changed by anyone to push an agenda.

The only people who did that were Roy Spencer and John Christy at UAH, all other real scientists used to use the period for which they had the most complete data coverage, but this did not allow direct comparison between data sets from different sources.
Now the WMO recommend that the most recent three decades should be used as the “climatic norm”, i.e 1981-2010 to allow direct comparison between data sets.

 

[Billy_Bob]

When using anomalies you can raise or lower the temp anomaly reading by what you choose as the zero base or the mean temperature for the period you select. Note that this is very ambiguous and can be changed by anyone to push an agenda.

The only people who did that were Roy Spencer and John Christy at UAH, all other real scientists used to use the period for which they had the most complete data coverage, but this did not allow direct comparison between data sets from different sources.
Now the WMO recommend that the most recent three decades should be used as the “climatic norm”, i.e 1981-2010 to allow direct comparison between data sets.

If you had taken the time to read (I know this is hard for alarmists who are told what to think, what to say and punished if they dont) They explained their reasoning as the length of the satellite era vs the HCN. But hey ignore facts and keep on the faith...

The satellite data shows the HCN data not only corrupt but flat ass made up bull shit not worth the money we spent to create it. US-CRN lays waste to the HCN's data as severely diminished in quality and reliability. Funny how a pristine set up of true science will always lay waste to garbage. US-CRN also is right on the money with satellite data, why is that?

 

[Billy_Bob]

In 1880 the thermometers used had error ranges of about +/-2 deg C (or a 4 degreee C range) anything in that range is of no statistical value.

Which is why REAL scientists are smart enough to use ANOMALIES rather than the raw temperature.
DUH!

what advantage does using the anomalies give them that the reading off the thermometer doesn't? I bet this is interesting.

Because it renders the accuracy of the individual thermometer meaningless as long as you use the same thermometer.
DUH!

Actually, NO!

Accurate temperate readings are necessary to determine the effect of any changes or influences that have changed to the system. Accuracy is paramount and is precisely why the AGW cult can figure out why it has not warmed in over 18 years 11 months.

All anomalies do, is allow us to create a common starting point to compare trends of differing sites. IE: a rural site vs a site in the middle of concrete and asphalt.

Saying that you can make accurate data irrelevant is powerful stupidity.

WOW!
You make JC look smart!

I said accurate thermometers are irrelevant, not readings.

And the not warming in 18 years is from inaccurate satellite computer models used to turn diurnal satellite drift and irradiance measurements into temperature data.

Both accuracy of reading and accuracy of the device are paramount. You really are stuck on stupid..

Tell me why UAH made adjustments to be more like RSS? was it becasue they found errors? And RSS has been consistently lower than the HCN system.. Is that your beef? Because the corrections did not meet you expectations of warming? Funnier still, RSS is run by an alarmist.. and you still dis it...