The Holocene Deniers

[thaumaturgy]

grmorton: You have posted several pictures of stations "next to" air conditioners and parking lots. I would like to know how far a thermometer would have to be from these heat sources before it would be "reliable".

Gracchus, good question. This would be an interesting calculation.

But something I've been thinking about lately is: is the heat from the AC unit (or some other mechanical heat source) an "additive" or does it sort of "buffer" the temperature around it such that it doesn't simply add onto the temperature. If the temp of the regular, un-air conditioned surroundings is, say, 20[sup]o[/sup] and the temperature of the AC unit's surroundings is actually 50[sup]o[/sup] the temperature at the thermometer doesn't read 70[sup]o[/sup], it should read 50[sup]o[/sup].

Again, the AC unit isn't running all the time, so it must be a moderated impact but an overall positive bias until surrounding temperatures are actually higher than the AC unit at which point it should read the higher temp.

But in the end, as has been pointed out: the overall averaged trend is the key and that averaging (gridded averaging) should tend to be less impacted by a few bad gauges. Unless, of course we are talking about AIR CONDITIONER COUNTY, OKLAHOMA where there are AC units every square meter of landspace for hundreds of miles and it is impossible to get a real data point.

 

[grmorton]

How many people get a professorship exactly where they want to live for goodness sake?
Trying to maintain because he had to go to another University to get a professorship he was treated very very badly is highly amusing, you will go to extraordinary lengths to try and back up your risible claims.

Do you really think getting a professorship at a prestigious European University in his 40s was some sort of terrible punishment

The man had a successful academic career doing what he wanted to do, that is success in my book, perhaps you just have different, ridiculously hyperbolic, definitions of "very very badly" to the rest of us.





Excellent seeing as you are au fait with Holmes and his stature and his strong support for Wegener you can now withdraw your risible claim that he is in someway analagous to Drollos. Your risible claim that he was treated any worse than anyone else proposing an unsupported hypothesis. Any claim that he was a lone voice, an outsider without support or any other such bollocks.

Wegener was a successful scientist with strong support for his hypothesis from within the geological community, he position was in no way analgous to a political axe grinder who doesn't understand the subject he is attempting to undermine.





What has that got to do with anything? He knew he had support in his lifetime.



Who cares apart from a few political axe grinders who don't understand the statistics of trends?


I am amazed you still don't understand why poorly placed individual thermometers don't matter when discussing temperature trends.

You obviously aren't as bright as we, or indeed you, thought

Lets stay with global warming. Do you think the below situation with an air conditioner next to a thermometer is a grand way to measure temperature? You have only once said that it was bad, but then you revert back to irrelevancies.

Baggins, according to you, I should not be squawking about this crappy method of measuring the temperature. I should sit and let the experts tell me what to believe. Is that your position?

 

[grmorton]

As far as I can tell it is only blind obedience to the priestly climatologists that keeps people from wondering why the H so many thermometers are next to air conditioners.

Here is one on top of hot cement. Have you ever walked across cement in Texas in August with bare feet? Cement gets really hot. And the citing recommendations, which Gracchus can't look up all the while chiding me for having changed my mind on AGW, says this (just to remind everyone.


Class 5 (error >= 5ºC) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf

If you doubt this, you can find this station pictured from the other side of the fence on google streetview.

As I said yesterday. I will give each of you a penny so you will have a penny's worth of curiosity rather than sitting in your stiffling belief system.

I will warn everyone, I am now going to start asking what if anything would falsify global warming in your mind. Why am I going to ask that? Because scientific theories are falsifiable; religious beliefs aren't.

To the lurkers, start now noticing how many of these people won't answer that question. (I am hoping the last sentence will goad them to answer).

So I ask again. Who is the idiot in GISS and NOAA who thinks this is a good way to measure temperature?

 

[grmorton]

Class 5 (error >= 5ºC) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf

How about Cordoba Alaska? Do you know how much heat a transformer gives off in joule heating? Thau, statistics won't answer

But then, I am the idiot for thinking this is a problem. Yep, I am the one who is crazy to doubt the consensus.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thau, first off, I didn't see you ever answer my question: What exactly, precisely is it that would falsify global warming for you? What data?

I answered that exact question several pages ago.

Now to your question of Greenland. I never said that the world was cooling. I said Greenland was cooling since 2000. You merely verified what I said, so I don't see what your issue is.

My point is that it doesn't matter what location you are talking about, the point is that this is a global phenomenon based on the global average.

It is warming only if we have measured the temperature correctly. That is what I keep pointing out.

Thankfully we don't have to rely only on USHCN data.

Here's a quote from a famous scientist:

Now Thau seems to be under the misaprehension that I think the world has not warmed. I told him last time we debated that I KNOW the world has warmed. So I, like him, would expect plants to move north. But, he can't read clearly so he wants to constantly claim that I don't believe the world has warmed. Last night I posted a chart showing that the warming started in 1650--yes, warming Thau. but that warming which started in 1650 has nothing to do with CO2. Indeed, CO2 didn't really start rising until about 1955. All the warming prior to that was natural and it is bigger than that after 1955. Of course, you won't care about this. YOu will soon again claim that I don't believe the world is warming.

I BELIEVE THE WORLD IS WARMING. I hope your old eyes can read that Thau.

And I believe authority figures!

Even you admit that the siting is awful. Please explain in detail how one corrects for the air conditioner effect

One doesn't really. And since not all stations are near AC units and those 70 stations that NOAA has that are sited "good" to "best" still show the same warming trend that the whole system does indicates that the AC effect isn't such an impact.

That Greenland is now cooling.

IF you only go by the last 7 years worth of data. IF you look at the broader trend there are times when it is warming.

I suppose it depends on where you "clip" the data (hey, are you ever going to revisit that excel graph where you somehow ended up mysteriously condensing 30,000 data points down to 100 and claim it was daily data? I'm still waiting for that. Back on post #414 you said you were going to correct that and track down the error that Excel mysteriously did to the data...as to how someone could look at 100 points and think it was the same as 30,000 points on an excel graph is still beyond me, but you said you were going to correct that...I'm anxiously awaiting.)

I will go further. If it is presently cooling why should we worry about it melting away?

Again, I am fascinated that you interpret noise so thoroughly. In the present case all one need do is look at any of the global temperature graphs and see it spike up and down. You seem to want to focus only on the spikes in little regions as if the overall trend over decades is somehow less important.

I am quite curious now why you would put so much focus on variation in the data at the expense of the overall signal.

Your answer would seem to require that you absolutely know that the past will continue into the future.

Nope. (That's why we've been discussing statistics...well, I've been discussing statistics.)

Isn't that what faith is? Belief in things unseen?

It could change tomorrow. I am merely following the trend. Prediction says that the trend may continue not that it has to. In the present case we have a good set of mechanistic reasons to understand what is driving the trend, so unless we change those mechanisms we have little reason to believe a "miracle" is going to happen and suddenly AGW will stop without us taking any action.

Just for fun, here is another MMTS with its pet air conditioner in the back ground.

Hey, just for fun, why don't you bother to model, just once, the relative impact of some set number of realistically spaced air conditioning units in a grid the size of the U.S. Remember, you have 1221 stations and only 98 of those have heat sources (as per your earlier statement). They are scattered across the U.S.

I'd be happy to see you do something other than post anecdotal data.

From where I sit anecdotal data is worth about nothing. I didn't go into science to deal with anecdotal data. That's why people take homeopathic medicines and believe in voodoo cures. I like real data dealt with in real-data terms. That means understanding the overall effects of averaging the vast amount of data, not just looking at single pictures.

Thau, it doesn't matter what your statistics say if there are so many badly sited stations that the entire enterprise is skewed towards warming in the latter part of last century. That air conditioner wasn't there in 1900.

"So many"? You earlier said there were only 8% of the USHCN stations that had heat sources by them:

And you seem not to understand that when a survey shows that 8% of all thermometers are next to heat sources,

(emphasis added)

You're going to have to prove that that 8% can significantly shift the mean of data collected by 1221 stations. (And I'm setting the bar reasonably low since I didn't ask you to shift the median which is more resistant to outliers)

8%.

(Hint: 32% of all data in a normal distribution is outside of 1 standard deviation. And if you have sufficient data the 95% confidence interval on the mean is even narrower than one standard deviation as I've shown mathematically now countless times in this thread alone.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

How about Cordoba Alaska? Do you know how much heat a transformer gives off in joule heating? Thau, statistics won't answer that question.

Ever hear of Statistical Thermodynamics?

Statistical thermodynamics is based on the fundamental assumption that all possible configurations of a given system, which satisfy the given boundary conditions such as temperature, volume and number of particles, are equally likely to occur. The overall system will therefore be in the statistically most probable configuration. The entropy of a system is defined as the logarithm of the number of possible configurations.(SOURCE)

(As another aside if you set a thermometer near a heat source, any heat source out in the open like that, you are dealing with a distribution of energy arriving at the thermometer. So, indeed, understanding the distribution of the energy would seem to be quite important as well. Some energy is lost to the surroundings on its way to the thermometer and some radiates off in other directions.)

 

[David Gould]

GRMorton,

If I am measuring temperature trends, and I put my thermometer next to an airconditioner, and that air conditioner is used (on average) the same amount in any given year, what affect would that have on any trend?

Obviously, it would affect absolute temperatures. But how could it affect the trend?

 

[grmorton]

I answered that exact question several pages ago.

My point is that it doesn't matter what location you are talking about, the point is that this is a global phenomenon based on the global average.

And you think urbanization and air conditioners is merely a US phenomenon? Yeah right.

I missed your explanation. Would you be so kind as to give it again?

Thankfully we don't have to rely only on USHCN data.

So you agree that the USHCN is crap. Thank goodness. I am delighted.

Here's a quote from a famous scientist:

And I believe authority figures!

Well, I am not a sheeple. I question authority. I have since I was a very very rebellious teen.

One doesn't really. And since not all stations are near AC units and those 70 stations that NOAA has that are sited "good" to "best" still show the same warming trend that the whole system does indicates that the AC effect isn't such an impact.

Keep the faith Thau. Shoot Thau, the editing adds about 40% of the claimed warming and you haven't answered that issue. See the NOAA chart a few posts above.

I suppose it depends on where you "clip" the data (hey, are you ever going to revisit that excel graph where you somehow ended up mysteriously condensing 30,000 data points down to 100 and claim it was daily data? I'm still waiting for that. Back on post #414 you said you were going to correct that and track down the error that Excel mysteriously did to the data...as to how someone could look at 100 points and think it was the same as 30,000 points on an excel graph is still beyond me, but you said you were going to correct that...I'm anxiously awaiting.)

Like you, I answered it earlier. If you won't be kind enough to repeat, then I won't as well.

I am quite curious now why you would put so much focus on variation in the data at the expense of the overall signal.

Signal?????? Sheesh, you and I have had this discussion before. The standard deviation measures the variance. To be within a 95% confidence interval of some conclusion one must be below 3 standard deviations. The standard deviation of most pair wise comparisons of the temperature differences between two closely spaced towns is in the neighborhood of 3-4 degrees. Lets use 3. Thus to claim that the world/US or county has changed one must have an SD less than 1/3 of the asserted temperature change to be above the noise level. IN the case of temperature you are claiming that the earth is warming over the last century at the rate of .84 +/- 9 deg C. Which of course, means you can't claim it has warmed at all. But, I don't expect you to acknowledge that. You never have understood that simple fact of statistics.

Hey, just for fun, why don't you bother to model, just once, the relative impact of some set number of realistically spaced air conditioning units in a grid the size of the U.S. Remember, you have 1221 stations and only 98 of those have heat sources (as per your earlier statement). They are scattered across the U.S.

I prefer to examine observational data. It tells me what reality is.

(Hint: 32% of all data in a normal distribution is outside of 1 standard deviation. And if you have sufficient data the 95% confidence interval on the mean is even narrower than one standard deviation as I've shown mathematically now countless times in this thread alone.)

Hint the SD of the temperature differences of pairs of towns is about 3-4 degrees. That means that is the error in the data. Yes 32% is outside of 1 SD and that means you are claiming that the world has warmed by .84 +/- 3 degrees. Which is ridiculous and I will stand by that. I can't beleive that I am having to explain such a freshman level thing like that to you.

 

[grmorton]

GRMorton,

If I am measuring temperature trends, and I put my thermometer next to an airconditioner, and that air conditioner is used (on average) the same amount in any given year, what affect would that have on any trend?

Obviously, it would affect absolute temperatures. But how could it affect the trend?

Sigh. &^$%#&@(#$. Such bad thinking. The air conditioner wasn't there in 1900. It IS there after 1980. That tilts the trend. What is so &^&#%)(# hard about that concept?

You aren't from New Hampshire are you? No, I see you are from Australia. I had a boss by your name, a very bad manager.

 

[grmorton]

Ever hear of Statistical Thermodynamics?



(As another aside if you set a thermometer near a heat source, any heat source out in the open like that, you are dealing with a distribution of energy arriving at the thermometer. So, indeed, understanding the distribution of the energy would seem to be quite important as well. Some energy is lost to the surroundings on its way to the thermometer and some radiates off in other directions.)

Yeah, I heard of and took a couple of courses in it. But, it isn't statistics that tells you the joule heating. Physics knowledge doesn't seem to be your strong suit. For your info, Statistical thermo has to do with collections of particles, like atoms flying around in an atmosphere.

Joule heating is i^2 x R where i is the current and R is the resistance. It was discovered by Joule. Boltzman and others discovered statistical thermo. Sheesh, Thau, you should be more knowledgeable than that. Can joule heating be explained by statistical thermo? Yes, but it is much simpler to use the earlier formulation.

 

[David Gould]

grmorton,

So you would agree that the trend since 1980 is *not* affected by the airconditioner?

 

[David Gould]

Further, in the temperature data for that particular station was there a step change at 1980?

 

[David Gould]

GHCN Global Gridded Data

Regarding the graph that you posted earlier, the above is the link it was taken from. As the material explains, the reason that the raw data is different from the processed data is that the data is processed to remove problems caused by re-siting of stations, the urban heat island effect (which would include some of the air conditioners that you are so fond of. ) and other issues. It is so that like can be compared with like.

There is nothing sinister in this, nothing anti-scientific and nothing in it that suggests that the data is rubbish. They explain their methodology and rationale. If you may certainly disagree with either. However, the chart that you posted does not support your arguments and does not show anything wrong with the data.

If you can come up with reasons to dispute their methodology, I would be happy to hear about them.

 

[Gracchus]

Sigh, it would be nice if you could do some research for yourself. I have several times posted a link to the siting recommendations. You could have found out but I will give it to you. From

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf
Class 1 &#8211; Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19&#186. Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

You left a bit out.
"2.2.1 Classification for Temperature/Humidity
Class 1
&#8211; Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3
(<19&#186. Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at
least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete
surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of
the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation
>3 degrees.
Class 2
&#8211; Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25
centimeters. Artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5&#186;.
Class 3
(error 1&#186;C) &#8211; Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10
meters.
Class 4
(error &#8805; 2&#186;C) &#8211; Artificial heating sources <10 meters.
Class 5
(error &#8805; 5&#186;C) &#8211; Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating
source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

In short, they are aware of the problematic placements. They take it into consideration. (Thanks for the link!)

Gracchus, that is only true if the perturbation in the temperature field is constant for the past 100 years. Look up at the post or two above this one and you will find a chart of cement use in the US roadways. You can see that the same thermal conditions didn't exist in 1900 as they do today.

So your point is that man's activities have caused the warming? I thought you were arguing against that point of view!

you who claim that it doesn't matter if there is a heat source so long as you can get the trend, forget something very very important. The perturbation must be constant. If it isn't, then you can't get the trend. I assert that the nation in 1900 had a whole lot less thermal pollution than it has today. If you disagree with that, please present your data.

That is the point. We are screwing up the climate.

Sigh. How many times do I have to say that I believe that the world is warming. I don't think it is warming as much as is claimed, nor do I think it is caused largely by CO2. Shoot, NOAA proves that .3 deg C is due simply to the manipulations of the editors at GISS, but y'all keep ignoring this point.

I don&#8217;t miss the point. There are lots of factors that enter into the mix. The increased temperature releases methane, an even more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, and increases water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas. The increase in temperature leads to greater use of air conditioners. That leads to greater AGW.
Moreover, the climatologists say that the change is faster than they first thought and accelerating. I haven&#8217;t milled out the stats, but the experts have. I am sure you are a very smart fellow, but you are not a climatologist.
Now weather, and climate is "chaotic". It is sensitive to initial conditions. A change in the fourth or fifth decimal place today, may lead to a huge, unpredictable difference after the passage of time. (The Butterfly&#8217;s Wing Effect) In fact, it was in computer modeling of climate that chaos theory was first discovered.
&#12288;

I doubt I can change your mind, but stare at the picture below for a while thinking about subtracting the 'corrected' data from the raw data.

In fact, they don&#8217;t subtract anything from the raw data. They note a change in the amount of confidence that they can put in data collected from problematic locations.

Well, this ignores another fact. I have already CHANGED my mind. I used to believe in global warming. Up until about 2006/2007 I believed what I was told. Then I saw the air conditioners.

So, are you saying that I should never have looked at the pictures?

I am saying that you probably did not take all those pictures. The folks who placed those stations are aware of the problem, and have done their best to deal with it.

You have not answered the question about whether or not you think you can get a good temperature reading from thermometers next to air conditioners. I find no one here but Thau will even try to answer questions. Do you care to break the trend or will you ignore the question as you did earlier?

There are air conditioners, there is asphalt, there is concrete, and all contribute to the problem. And warming is a positive feedback loop, i.e. it is destabilizing.

And while you are at it I will ask the question I ask YECs. What, if anything would falsify global warming in your mind?

Go back to post #475 . If the red and blue dots on the maps were about the same in the small clip as in the large clip, if the trend on the graphs were not so consistently upward, I would re-think my conclusions. I have no investment in global warming. It costs me nothing to re-think.
But the Arctic Ocean ice is vanishing, and that means the water will absorb more heat, and will warm, and release more methane, causing more warming ... It is very hard for me to get around the facts. And I would be less (or more) than human if I did not draw tentative conclusions from an examination of the facts.

If there is nothing, you don't have a scientific belief. If you can tell me something,, then I will look to see if I can show it to you.

Here is an MMTS with about 20 pet air conditioners. Some are not shown in this view. The thing is surrounded by AC units.
Pleae tell me you think this is a good way to measure temperature.

Air conditioners do cause the temperature to rise. After all, the air conditioners shouldn&#8217;t be ignored. They should be allowed for. That is an imperfect solution, in an imperfect world. Come up with something better. Should we place all stations outside urban areas, and upwind of them? Data from those areas might be valuable in some other context. They don't place stations to prove or disprove Anthropogenic Global Warming, or even Global Warming. They place stations to gather data, which can be analyzed to draw tentative conclusions. Of course, after a while, the conclusions may be somewhat more than tentative.

After all, I am supposed to sit down shut up and listen to the experts. Isn't that what you all want me to do? From that, I can only conclude that you all think the above is fantastic.

I don&#8217;t particularly want you to do anything. I have some default respect for those making assertions in their own fields of study. And I have some, though not so much faith, in experts making pronouncements about things not within the purview of their own expertise.
&#12288;

Why am I the idiot for thinking that this is a problem Gracchus? Please explain in detail.

You are not an idiot for thinking it poses a problem. It might be foolish however to discount the possibility that the experts have already noticed the problem. Look back at the Climate Reference Network Site Information Handbook, with special reference to "Section 2: Site Selection".

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf

It looks like they have seen the problem you "discovered". They are dealing with it as best they can, while staying in budget.
Maybe it is not good enough. But I venture to say they have probably put more thought and study and expertise into it than you have.
(No offense intended!)

 

[David Gould]

As to what would falsify my belief that the world is warming, if six of the years 2009-2020 inclusive were cooler than 2008, then I would have to conclude that the world was not warming. This would be default have me conclude that humans were not causing the world to warm.

If the world kept warming, but it was demonstrated that this was because of, for example, solar flare activity, then that would also have me conclude at the very least that the human contribution to world warming was smaller than previously thought.

The basic physics tells us that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will increase global temperatures by 3 +/- 1.5 degrees centrigade. It would be tricky to overturn such basic physics. Lots of things we believe would have to turn out to be very wrong indeed. So it is more difficult to point to a specific limited set of circumstances that would overturn my belief in that 3 +/- 1.5 degrees per doubling.

 

[thaumaturgy]

So you agree that the USHCN is crap.

Actually misrepresenting my point. In fact you are misrepresenting about everything I've posted on this thread so far. How many posts? Nearly 100 here alone?

I've shown the stats. I've agreed there are bad data points, but by and large what you've shown on here I wouldn't call "crap", nor would I indict the entire system because you've been able to show me several stations not too far away from each other who differ on the median of 0 to 2 degrees from each other over the course of 60 to 100 years worth of data.

Like you, I answered it earlier. If you won't be kind enough to repeat, then I won't as well.

I answered your question on Post #420

Now show me where you addressed your missing 29,900 data points.

Thanks.

Signal?????? Sheesh, you and I have had this discussion before. The standard deviation measures the variance. To be within a 95&#37; confidence interval of some conclusion one must be below 3 standard deviations.

You are factually incorrect here. Glenn, let's go over it one more time.

You are simply wrong.

The 95% confidence interval IS NOT THE SAME AS THE 95% POPULATION area.95% of the population in a normal distribution will be within 2 standard deviations but that is not the same as the 95% confidence interval on the mean.

This is intro stats.

Again:

the 95% confidence interval on the mean is equal to:

mean+1.96*s/sqrt(N)

where:
s = standard deviation
sqrt(N) = square root of the number of samples
(1.96 is the z-statistic value applicable for populations, but the t-statistic value can be used based on the number of degrees of freedom)

ERGO: (if you cfollow the math) if you have more than 4 or 5 data points since the number of samples is in the denominator then the 95% confidence interval will be SMALLER THAN 1 STANDARD DEVIAION.

That's simply the math.

Here's a link to describe the confidence interval for you in case you don't want to take my word for it: LINKY

The standard deviation of most pair wise comparisons of the temperature differences between two closely spaced towns is in the neighborhood of 3-4 degrees. Lets use 3. Thus to claim that the world/US or county has changed one must have an SD less than 1/3 of the asserted temperature change to be above the noise level.

What statistics book are you working from?

Why don't you try a t-test for a comparison of means? This is a very common intro statistic.

Here's the t-test format:

t = (Mean[sub]1[/sub] - Mean[sub]2[/sub])/s[sub]mean1-mean2[/sub]

where
s[sub]mean1-mean2[/sub] is the standard error of the difference between the means. It itself is:

s[sub]mean1-mean2[/sub] = sqrt{((N[sub]1[/sub]s[sub]1[/sub][sup]2[/sup] + N[sub]2[/sub]s[sub]2[/sub][sup]2[/sup])/(N[sub]1[/sub]+N[sub]2[/sub]-2))*((N[sub]1[/sub]+N[sub]2[/sub])/N[sub]1[/sub]N[sub]2[/sub]))}

N= number of samples
s= standard deviation

If you would like to learn more about statistics I have offered on numerous occasions various citations you can read for yourself.

Here's a NIST link to describe this test to you (LINKY2)

IN the case of temperature you are claiming that the earth is warming over the last century at the rate of .84 +/- 9 deg C. Which of course, means you can't claim it has warmed at all. But, I don't expect you to acknowledge that. You never have understood that simple fact of statistics.

Speaking of "simple facts of statistics":

Which of the two of us understands the difference between a confidence interval and a standard deviation?

Which of the two of us knows how to compare means using a t-test?

Which of the two of us has actually provided robust statistical analyses to prove their points?

Interestingly enough on almost all of my posts in which I put stats up I have an associated p-value. That little p-value tells me how likely it is I am making a rather specific type of error. Where are your p-values?

I prefer to examine observational data. It tells me what reality is.

Anecdotal data is why quack medicine is popular.

Hint the SD of the temperature differences of pairs of towns is about 3-4 degrees. That means that is the error in the data.

The standard error of the mean is actually the standard deviation divided by the square root of the number of samples

The standard deviation is a measure of dispersion of the data about the mean.

 

[Thistlethorn]

It seems the hair-do thing flew right over Glen's head. I can't say I'm surprised. I SHOULD be surprised that Glen is still harping on about the poorly sited measuring stations, especially given the fact that he's been shown time and again that when data is collected from ONLY the well sited stations, it differs marginally from data collected from ALL stations. This simple fact just don't seem to sink in for Glen.

 

[Baggins]

It's starting to get embarrassing now, Mr Morton's lack of basic statistical understanding is painful to watch.

In answer to Mr Morton's YEC question what would make me change my mind; many thinks would happily make me change my mind but the most important would be a statistically significant cooling event over a number of years not associated with a a La Nina event or Volcanic activity or other explainable mechanism.

I would hang the bunting out on that day in the knowledge that my area of employment was not going to be heavily regulated and that our children and grand children were not going to look back on us with disgust and horror from a society where progress had been retarded and reversed.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Just to be clear how many stations in the US have been identified as being unreliable due to being near heat sources?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Like you, I answered it earlier. If you won't be kind enough to repeat, then I won't as well.

I've looked back through the posts again, since Post #414 and I sure can't see where you re-ran the plot and re-calculated the slope of the line for that data. I am now very curious as to where you addressed this point.

Again, a plot with 30,000 data points is hard to miss. I should know, I've actually posted a few here!