Global Warming Test

Wow! Lorax completely ignored the GISS graphs. I told you these guys fail when it comes to anything but shouting "CONSENSUS!!!"
 
tinfoil said:
Wow! Lorax completely ignored the GISS graphs. I told you these guys fail when it comes to anything but shouting "CONSENSUS!!!"
Click to expand...

LOLzers. I'm focused on OH & TX right now.

Every time I argue science, you bail. Why should I keep trotting it out there? You ignored it with your debunked ice core study (disappeared on that one fast), and you ignored it on this thread. All I'll get if I try to argue it is an "LOL," and then you'll disappear for a few days.
 
Onceler said:
"Over that decade if that start point and end point are identical.... the average change HAS to be flat."

I told you not to waste any more of my time tonight. This is getting aggravating; Darla was right.

Think very hard about the statement above. Think as hard as you can.
Click to expand...

superfreak: ake a ruler and draw a straight line between the start point 1998 and the end point 2007. That will show you what the trend has been during that time frame.
Click to expand...

OMG. Please tell me SF was joking.

Your a hopeless nitwit SF.

I sure hope this isn't how you do stock price analysis: picking two random data points at your convenience, and "draw a straight line through them" to define a trend analysis.

Two random data points, subjectively chosen at your convenience, is not only invalid trend analysis. Its not only bad science. It would get you fired from any financial or stock analysis job. You could pick any two data points on my NASA temperature graph, and "draw a straight line through them" to get any answer you want: temperature is trending up, trending down, or staying the same.

But, then you are only concerned with being an armchair expert on message boards, and that you know more about climate change than NASA scientists, aren't you? Is there any subject in which you can profess you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about?
 
Cypress said:
OMG. Please tell me SF was joking.

Your a hopeless nitwit SF.

"I sure hope this isn't how you do stock price analysis: picking two random data points at your convenience, and "draw a straight line through them" to define a trend analysis."

When analyzing stocks, we look at trends you twit. We look at short term trends (typically less than a year) and longer term trends.... what has the stock done over the past five, ten and twenty years.

Again, I am not picking two "random data points" I am taking a ten year window. All the data points in between are included you moron. If you start with a temperature of "X" and ten years later you end with a temperature of "X".... it means ALL the data points in between HAVE to average out to a net zero change. You could use annual data, monthly, or by the minute if it were available and the results would be the same.

As for looking at 1998-2007.... aren't you the one that mentioned that the two were tied? What does that suggest to you? That perhaps they just might be the..... SAME?

A trend line is linear gumby. The individual data points are going to fall around that line, but not all are going to fall on it. You will have outliers. In other words temperatures went up and they went down over that ten year period. But they started and finished at the same average temperature. Draw that trend line and see what it looks like to you Gumby.

"Two random data points, subjectively chosen at your convenience, is not only invalid trend analysis. Its not only bad science. It would get you fired from any financial or stock analysis job. You could pick any two data points on my NASA temperature graph, and "draw a straight line through them" to get any answer you want: temperature is trending up, trending down, or staying the same. "

LMAO.... again, it is a ten year window. You turned right around last night and said, "scientists look at a twenty year window" (which is true, but they also look at more than one time frame). It is the past TEN years. That is a pretty standard time frame for analysis. Poor Gumby...

But, then you are only concerned with being an armchair expert on message boards, and that you know more about climate change than NASA scientists, aren't you? Is there any subject in which you can profess you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about?
Click to expand...

I never said I knew more than scientists Gumby. I asked, WHY is it that temperatures last year were the same as they were ten years ago?

Then you and Lorax go off on your "you are a child" type answers and fail to address it.

Then to make it completely laughable... you try to spin your way out of it by pretending you understand trendlines. You obviously do not. So why don't you go back to humping the leg of the next woman to walk by and leave the discussion to those who are willing to discuss this with out the bullshit you are tossing around.
 
It's quite interesting that Lorax and Cypress are laughing about a ten year window when that's the precise time period Hansen, one of their holy men, chooses to use in the GISS graph above. We flat earthers didn't choose to talk about decade to decade. This is the trick the warmers use.
 
tinfoil said:
It's quite interesting that Lorax and Cypress are laughing about a ten year window when that's the precise time period Hansen, one of their holy men, chooses to use in the GISS graph above. We flat earthers didn't choose to talk about decade to decade. This is the trick the warmers use.
Click to expand...

I am just waiting for Gumby to come on here yet again and pretend that looking at the last ten years is somehow "picking two random points". I really look forward to him calling me a nitwit again as well. It just makes it all the funnier watching him come to the realization that there is no way to argue with the data. Especially given the fact that he used this same data set and the fact that 1998 and 2007 were the same to try to state his position.
 
Superfreak said:
I am just waiting for Gumby to come on here yet again and pretend that looking at the last ten years is somehow "picking two random points". I really look forward to him calling me a nitwit again as well. It just makes it all the funnier watching him come to the realization that there is no way to argue with the data. Especially given the fact that he used this same data set and the fact that 1998 and 2007 were the same to try to state his position.
Click to expand...


Quite honestly, I'm embarassed for you. Your interpretation of "trend" is the narrowest one possible. Do you really think climatoligists think that way? Do you think they ignore every year in between? Do you think one anomoly forces them to abandon the clear pattern represented by the other 8-20 years (depending on which graph you use?)

You're hopeless. You're seriously one of the dumbest people here if you stick by that.
 
Onceler said:
Quite honestly, I'm embarassed for you. Your interpretation of "trend" is the narrowest one possible. Do you really think climatoligists think that way? Do you think they ignore every year in between? Do you think one anomoly forces them to abandon the clear pattern represented by the other 8-20 years (depending on which graph you use?)

You're hopeless. You're seriously one of the dumbest people here if you stick by that.
Click to expand...

PAY ATTENTION....

Tell me where I am wrong genius.

If you take a ten year window... in this case, ALL the data for the past ten years (you can use annual, monthly or daily data... it won't matter) and you average all the data points... what do you think the average will be?

I'll try to spell it out for the two retards one more time..... If you start with an avg. temperature of 78 (just for argument sake) and end ten years later with an avg temperature of 78.....

ALL the data points in between will average out to ..... 78. Otherwise, the end point would be higher or lower than the start point.

So Lorax, instead of throwing another "I am superior fit" .... how about you explain what it is in the above that you think is wrong.
 
Onceler said:
Quite honestly, I'm embarassed for you. Your interpretation of "trend" is the narrowest one possible. Do you really think climatoligists think that way? Do you think they ignore every year in between? Do you think one anomoly forces them to abandon the clear pattern represented by the other 8-20 years (depending on which graph you use?)

You're hopeless. You're seriously one of the dumbest people here if you stick by that.
Click to expand...

and yes, climatologists most certainly think that way. Which is why the global warming advocates highlighted the hockey stick in the late 90's so much. It was showing a disturbing pattern in breaking from the past trendline and setting a new trendline that spiked dramatically upward.

If you look to the past twenty years..... what would the picture look like?

____________________
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

Now, there would be outliers and the individual data points would fall around the trendline.... but that is what the trend would look like.

edit... for some reason it is taking the spacing out of that attempt at a graph....
 
Your not a scientist SF. You are really embarrasing yourself here. I sure hope this isn't how you analyze stock trends.

You can take any decade, pick two random data points and "draw a straight line through them" (your words) and come up with a result that shows a "trend" where there is no significant warming, or in fact, no warming at all.

Look at the NASA graph. The data points 1970 and 1980 when you "draw a straight line through them" actually shows "global cooling".


Two data points aren't used to define trends.

If you do any kind of stock price analysis using your method, you should be fired.
 
BTW (hate to do this SF)- If the first and the last temperatures are the same it has nothing to do with the average in a 10 data sample.

Lets give a 10 data sample. 78, 90, 90, 92, 93, 90, 88, 87, 80, 78. The average of such a sample is 86.6 regardless of how the first and last of the sample match.
 
Cypress said:
Your not a scientist SF. You are really embarrasing yourself here. I sure hope this isn't how you analyze stock trends.

You can take any decade, pick two random data points and "draw a straight line through them" (your words) and come up with a result that shows a "trend" where there is no significant warming, or in fact, no warming at all.

Look at the NASA graph. The data points 1970 and 1980 when you "draw a straight line through them" actually shows "global cooling".


Two data points aren't used to define trends.

If you do any kind of stock price analysis using your method, you should be fired.
Click to expand...


Oh Gumby... I am so glad you are "embarassed for me"... you should be embarrassed for yourself.

You are completely dense. Answer these for me gumby....

Do you disagree that the past ten years have resulted in no change (ie... temperatures in 2007 were on average the same as they were in 1998) ?

Do you disagree that if 1998 and 2007 are indeed the same that the average of all the temperature changes that occured in between must average out to a net zero change in temperature?

Yes, when you look at longer term trends you are going to see different patterns. That is why you look at multiple time windows. To see if things are changing.

That is why it was such a concern to see the hockey stick spike in the 1990's. It broke from what they were expecting. It established a different trend.
 
Damocles said:
BTW (hate to do this SF)- If the first and the last temperatures are the same it has nothing to do with the average in a 10 data sample.

Lets give a 10 data sample. 78, 90, 90, 92, 93, 90, 88, 87, 80, 78. The average of such a sample is 86.6 regardless of how the first and last of the sample match.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the average CHANGE .....

+12, 0, +2, +1, -3, -2, -1, -7, -2

Add them up... the average change is what? zero.
 
Do you disagree that the past ten years have resulted in no change (ie... temperatures in 2007 were on average the same as they were in 1998) ?


I don't disagree supertool, that if you randomly pick two end points in a random ten year period, you can "draw a straight line between them" (the two end points) to show anything you want. Yes, 1998 was hotter than 2007. That is both scientifically meaningless in terms of trend analysis, and more importantly, shows your complete lack of scientific and statistical knowledge.

Please tell me you have a job that doens't involve data analysis of any kind.
 
Last edited:
This is what Darla is talking about. You'll just keep going; it doesn't matter how many people show you how idiotic an interpretation of "trend" that is; you'll just stick with it until you're the last one standing.

The counterpoint to what you're saying has been presented as clear as day, by multiple posters (granted, not all koolaid drinkers "chanting consensus"). I have a hunch that you understand where you're wrong on this, but I don't expect you to admit it.
 
Cypress said:
Do you disagree that the past ten years have resulted in no change (ie... temperatures in 2007 were on average the same as they were in 1998) ?


I don't disagree supertool, that if you randomly pick to end points in a random ten year period, you can "draw a straight line between them" (the two end points) to show anything you want. Yes, 1998 was hotter than 2007. That is both scientifically meaningless in terms of trend analysis, and more importantly, shows your complete lact of scientific and statistical knowledge.

Please tell me you have a job that doens't involve data analysis of any kind.
Click to expand...

again gumby.... it is not random.... it is the annual data provided by Goddard for the past ten years.
 
Damocles said:
BTW (hate to do this SF)- If the first and the last temperatures are the same it has nothing to do with the average in a 10 data sample.

Lets give a 10 data sample. 78, 90, 90, 92, 93, 90, 88, 87, 80, 78. The average of such a sample is 86.6 regardless of how the first and last of the sample match.
Click to expand...


thank you.

I really don't think it's our job to educate someone on math, statistics, and trend analysis. We're wasting our time.
 
Damocles said:
BTW (hate to do this SF)- If the first and the last temperatures are the same it has nothing to do with the average in a 10 data sample.

Lets give a 10 data sample. 78, 90, 90, 92, 93, 90, 88, 87, 80, 78. The average of such a sample is 86.6 regardless of how the first and last of the sample match.
Click to expand...

but you are correct, my above example was a bad one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top