« First « Previous Comments 81 - 120 of 430 Next » Last » Search these comments
Onvacation saysIt just seems ridiculous to talk about a worldwide average temperature that can be measured down to hundredths of a degree.
Not sure why I'm explaining this
Please link to the calculations where thousands of thermometers are used to find the average year long temperature for the entire world with accuracy down to hundredths of a degree for the last century.
Even if you were averaging 100 numbers that were accurate to plus or minus on tenth of a degree, you would get an average that is accurate to one hundredth of a degree.
The fact that this is hard for you to grasp
calculations where thousands of thermometers are used to find the average year long temperature for the entire world with accuracy down to hundredths of a degree for the last century.
marcus saysThe fact that this is hard for you to grasp
Like I said, when the alarmist have no answers they go personal.
Even if you were averaging 100 numbers that were accurate to plus or minus on tenth of a degree, you would get an average that is accurate to one hundredth of a degree.
Like I said, when the alarmist have no answers they go personal.
Yes or no ?
calculations where thousands of thermometers are used to find the average year long temperature for the entire world with accuracy down to hundredths of a degree for the last century.
Aphroman says
What is the optimal temperature for humans.
I like 72 degrees Fahrenheit.
Necrophiliac?
HeadSet saysNecrophiliac?
I like it hot. Global cooling is not good for humans. Where would you rather live, tropics or tundra?
Even if you were averaging 100 numbers that were accurate to plus or minus on tenth of a degree, you would get an average that is accurate to one hundredth of a degree.
The fact that this is hard for you to grasp is consistent with the fact that you think a downswing within an uptrend constitutes a significant downtrend.
CBOEtrader saysuggesting multi-trillion dollar worldwide initiatives
That's a little extreme.
But it does deny certain big interests some of their near and medium term profits.
But you have to realize that investing a lot of money in 4th or 5th generation nuclear, possibly thorium, or other cutting edge and fairly efficient forms of enerrgy, and giving the fossil fuels a rest, is probably good for humanity regardless of the impact on AGW.
What is your backup plan if man made co2 is the problem and spirals out of control?
marcus saysEven if you were averaging 100 numbers that were accurate to plus or minus on tenth of a degree, you would get an average that is accurate to one hundredth of a degree.
No, that is incorrect. To calculate an average of measured values, the correct method is (1) to add the values and then (2) to divide by the number of measurements. The sum "can contain no more decimal places than the least precise measurement." The quotient "should have the same number of significant figures as the quantity having the least significant figures entering into the calculation." The precision of the measurements thus limits the precision of the average.
No, that is incorrect. To calculate an average of measured values, the correct method is (1) to add the values and then
Here's an example, simpler, but the same concept. Say you use a random number generator to generate numbers between 6 and 7 inclusive, accurate to the tenths place. Suppose these are true random numbers, 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, ........6.9, 7.0
But you always round to the 6 or seven, whichever is closest. If it's 6.5, you flip a coin, heads you call it 6, tails you call it 7. You do this one thousand times, using true random numbers to generate the tenths place.
So you have one thousand numbers and each is either 6 or 7 due to rounding by as much as .5., you add these 6 and 7s together and divide by 1000, getting an average very close to 6.5, give or take a few hundredths.
MY initial response was about data from say 120 years ago, when they were using thermometers. The thermometers give readings in 10ths, but there is space in between the 10th marks leading to people using some sort of rounding strategy, for calling the temp to the nearest 10th.
.If the measures are inaccurate (biased) but in the same way, then of course the average doesn't improve the accuracy of measurement. But if say the measurement are innacurate, in the same direction (say due to always rounding up to the next 10th whenever the reading is too close .05 in between to tell to the next highest 10th). Then for comparative purposes, that is comparing 1000s of valuesone year to 1000s of values the next year, the difference is going to be accurate to a much to much less than one 10th of a degree, even though the measurements were done to the nearest tenth.
Common sense, no ? Use reasoning, and consider my integer example.
***
In fact, the likelihood is such that with thousands of repeated measurements, guess what the average is going to be ?
***
I'm just using reasoning here. Maybe you can find a better web site to make your argument ?
prefer ignorance.
our comment quoted above seems also to show ignorance of the relevant difference between counting and measuring. The integer example is inapposite because a hypothetical list of integers contains, by definition, exact numbers: each infinitely accurate and precise. In contrast, a list of measurements is necessarily a list of approximations. If you can grasp these discrete concepts, then your comment seems to ignore the fact that math applies different rules to averaging each.
Democrats tend to value stated intent over results. Micro-managing CO2 would make little or no practical difference, but Democrats present it as a way of signaling good intent, and then pretend it can somehow stop the climate from changing, even though nobody who looks at the long history of climate change could really agree with that pretense.
So, you are the expert and can state categorically that a reduction in CO2 would have no effect on climate?
I would categorically state that the supposed increases in CO2 have had no noticeable impact on climate, so I would infer that reducing CO2 would have no noticeable effect.
And your comment seems to ignore the effect of sample size on statistics.
doing something to save themselves
There has definitely been a noticeable impact.
So how much has the temperature risen as the co2 has doubled?
The discussion of significant figures
Is very significant when your yalking of hundredths of one degree.
In fact, the scientists who prostitute themselves for oil companies
No--it's rightly analyzed statistically. Not with sig figures. We're trying to understand if there's a significant difference in the mean temperature in two populations of data.
. You don't believe the measurements anyway, so what's the point in showing you the rise?
Your questions have been asked and answered a million times on here.
That comment makes no sense. A person unable to state either of two means would consequently be unable to state the difference (if any) between them. Analyzing statistically significant differences (if any) depends on the prerequisite predicate: measuring the values and calculating the means.
No. I don't believe that you can measure the worldwide average temperature at all, much less down to hundredths of one degree.
The "rise" is very little.
So why would you ask for someone to show you the measurements then?
« First « Previous Comments 81 - 120 of 430 Next » Last » Search these comments
The average global temperature dropped by more than half a degree Celsius from February 2016 to February 2018, according to recent NASA data.
Read Newsmax: NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18