« First « Previous Comments 121 - 160 of 430 Next » Last » Search these comments
Of course you need to calculate the means of the populations. Why would you think that I am saying otherwise?
That is just being purposely difficult.
Because you did. T-testing only compounds your error: you're skipping the calculation of the mean in order to analyze in various GIGO processes. You can stare at tea leaves as long as you like, but they remain tea leaves, and analysis does not change them. I would actually agree the data can probably be measured to some degree of accuracy and precision, but you insist on skipping over those limits and tretching the data further, and that's before even starting on all the "adjustments."
Yes, you are, by asking me endless questions that you should see answered in your own comments while refusing to answer the only question that matters.
Agreed, you could just happen to be a stupid person!
jazz_music says
The discussion of significant figures
Is very significant when your measuring hundredths of one degree.
That is exactly false
Let's agree that obviously one needs to calculate the mean...
The point is that sig figs are less important than sample size in that calculation.
curious2 saysYes, you are, by asking me endless questions that you should see answered in your own comments while refusing to answer the only question that matters.
Wow--did you just pull a "I know you are, but what am I" there? Well done. Your question presumes facts not in evidence which is what I pointed out in my question to you.
No, you are conflating two discrete calculations. You don't get to the roof of the house until after you have built the foundation. You don't get to standard deviations, margins of error, and statistical signficance, all of which depend on sample size, until you have the underlying data.
AGW resembles a scam because it says basically that "the sky is falling and so you must pay hundreds of billion$" without actually proving the premise and without providing any realistic plan to solve the alleged problem. It's a series of scare tactics and emotional appeals to partisan identity ("Resist Trump" by opposing whatever he says, even if he says the sun is shining on a sunny day). That isn't math, and it isn't science, and it isn't engineering. It's a huge amount of money already, all these conferences and global travel (note endless CO2 output from global travel by AGW alarmists claiming everyone must reduce CO2 output). In that sense it's already doing something, i.e. transferring $ (which seems to be the point) and allowing some people to feel virtuous about paying $ or recycling their garbage, but it has neither a realistic prospect of signif...
You persist in asking me silly questions while ignoring the question that matters. Your comments are thus trolling, so I am going to stop feeding you. Have a nice day.
The point is that sig figs are less important than sample size in that calculation.
Now that the temperature is going down the alarmists are scrambling to make excuses and save the narrative, "co2 bad".
No. The point is that worldwide average temperature was not measurable before satellites. And even with satellites the idea of measuring worldwide average temperature down to the 4/100ths of one degree that 2016 was measured to be hotter than 2015 is ridiculous, in my opinion.
Your condescending attitude and insults are obviously hiding the truth that your argument is weak.
. Run away little man.
I've noticed again and again, whenever facts get in the way of their narrative, the alarmists go for the personal attack.
Earth is getting hotter.
Not really.
2 degrees over a century does not a heatwave make. Propaganda can only trump truth for so long before the lies become blatantly obvious.
Tell me, in what other century did the earth's temperature change by 2 degrees?
This is the amazing knowledge of one who had a beverage.
So, you do admit it's getting hotter then?
The roman warming, the medieval warm period, the little ice age, the dust bowlthe hockey stick(never happened). The climate has been much more variable than the alarmists data manipulations would lead you to BELIEVE!
1. Temperature records are unreliable.
2. Temperatures aren't rising.
3. Man is not the cause of temperature rising.
4. Earth's temperature fluctuations are normal. It is self correcting.
5. CO2 isn't causing temperatures to rise.
What idiot ever said man does not effect his environment? It's the co2 thing that is fraudulent.
Onvocation
It is only fair to start giving Donald Trump credit for global cooling.
97% of scientists
jazz_music says
The discussion of significant figures
Is very significant when your measuring hundredths of one degree.
CAGW will go down among the biggest frauds in scientific history.
CAGW will go down among the biggest frauds in scientific history.
over the long hall....
some people don't get it still.
Here's another simple example. It's often cited that moms have 2.4 children on average.
Whoever brought up sigfigs is someone that totally misunderstands the point.
that type of person is interested in a different kind of "win" than I am.
values are just as likely to be rounded up as down.
Whoever brought up sigfigs is someone that totally misunderstands the point.
There's one type of person that cares about the future
the worst of it won't affect them personally.
Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change." In contrast, CAGW = Citizens Against Government Waste. The CAGW website says:
I thought the temperature was going to hockey stick, Manhattan and Florida were supposed to be underwater, and wetbulb deaths were supposed to be common by now.
No. Old values were adjusted down and newer temperatures adjusted up to match the narrative.
That was leondurham.
Manipulated fictitious numbers can be as accurate as you want them to be. 97% for example.
Onvacation, please let me help you with something. I think you are trying to refer to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but that abbreviation has become archaic now that advocates have switched from "warming" to "climate change
Onvacation saysI thought the temperature was going to hockey stick, Manhattan and Florida were supposed to be underwater, and wetbulb deaths were supposed to be common by now.
No, that was never the mainstream belief.
that dramatic upspike that you like to call a dwontrend)
THe graph I posted in another thread actually still looks like a hockey stick, but not one that unfolds in months. I hope it's not.
« First « Previous Comments 121 - 160 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