No, I checked page 73 and it’s only 18%, clearly showing a downward trend.
It’s ironic that you would use the term “average” rather than any specific term which is meaningful in regards to understanding changes to a complex system.
You probably are thinking of the median, or maybe the arithmetic mean, and not the geometric mean or the harmonic mean. But who can tell?
I’m sure you aren’t thinking of Isohyetal Analysis, or using a Thiessen Polygon technique. Certainly the concept of Distance Weighting or a Gridded method is alien to you, and MAPX would just confuse you to the point of stupefied bemusement.
It understandable that most people want to simply take “all the temperature data of the world” and add it up and divide it and then say the “average” is “this value”, but it doesn’t work like that at all. Even using a weighted arithmetic mean has problems when it comes to temperature data.
But that isn’t even the biggest failing of your average tool, who thinks any warming at all has to be human caused, or global warming. Since climate has always changed, and will change over time, to be able to measure and understand any human factors, we have to understand actual climate first, to be able to see what difference our pollution is causing. Confusing natural changes with human caused changes, or even worse, confusing weather with climate, means it is all worse than useless for advancing science.
For an easy example, consider the dust bowl era, something hard to ignore. If summers were very hot and dry, but winters were very cold, the “average” might look like only slight warming occurred during the period. One could only look at the annual mean temperature, and not know much at all about what it was actually like.
This is a well known problem for meteorology, and actual climate study. Recent examples would include a winter month, in which half the month was unusually warm and dry, and the next half was record cold and snowy. The monthly mean temperature data would show an average month, using only the arithmetic mean tells nothing about what happened. But in reality it was anything but average.
When it comes to changes, this is an actual serious issue.
Alternatively, you could have just written “bump.”
Why would it be “ironic” to use a term that indicates your failure to account for the whole of a system, rather than just one small part of the system?
You point to one local effect, and then say that it disproves global warming.
Global Warming (i.e., the warming of the globe, not the other meaning you’ve chosen to Humpty Dumpty it) means – the entire globe. The whole of the earth. Some parts will become hotter. Others might not. But the overall average is…warmer.
This is simple high school physics. You fail at simple high school physics when you imply that a cold snap in Boston disproves global warming.
He’s been told this over and over and over.
He’s just impervious to the simple logic of it. Completely immune.
I know it’s largely a waste of time, but I have some vague hope of reaching innocent witnesses, people who come by and read these threads, who might be open to receiving the truth.
GIGObuster’s excellent work did that service for me; I’m just trying to pay it forward.
It’s ironic because that’s what the global alarmists does, trying to make any and all weather into evidence of catastrophic global warming. And it’s double irony that you can’t grasp it’s mockery of the same.The real problem facing anyone trying to frighten others, over global warming, is that a heat wave or a hurricane is a familiar event, as is flooding and drought. But the winter events actually cost money, and are a serious problem for modern society and industry. Ice to close upper Mississippi from November 20, earliest on record
Of course claiming there is no warming, or climate change, based on one record cold winter in one areas, is bad science.
No, that’s also part of the irony. If I was doing that, you and the other foul mouthed detractors would quote where I did it, and quite rightly mock such idiocy. As I have said many times, the only thing worse than claiming a cold winter or a blizzard means “no global warming”, would be to claim that a cold winter or a blizzard proves global warming.
Like a street preacher making sure no innocent ears are swayed by the rantings of some nobody? That’s priceless. It really is.
Let’s review how things could be in such a sad state.
Obvioulsy the ironic humor of blaming global warming for a record cold month in August, in Georgia, went right over the head. The next salvo also missed by a wide margin.
The intelligent person probably figures their is some humor in that, and certainly there was. What is maddening, is the lack of clarity about exactly what is being mocked, or what level of satire is being used. This is not by accident.
One can utter something that is actually true, but in a manner that makes it seem as if it is sarcasm. This creates an almost unbearable tension in the person not in on the joke.
Does he really think record cold means global warming? Does record cold actually mean global warming? Or is he mocking the very idea?
I mean, I posted numerous links to scientific peer reviewed science papers that theorize warming will lead to winter cooling in large areas. I even posted links to old theories about warming will cause cooling. I’ve posted many links to data showing cooling trends, as well as the unusual patterns of climate change.
I’ve explained why water vapor is not just a positive feedback, it also acts as a negative feedback. But before I ever started this insipid mockery of a topic, I was well aware no amount of facts would make the slightest dent in the belief.
So why not have some fun instead? Nothing is funnier than watching a seemingly logical intelligent person have a meltdown over their religion being shredded. Especially when the scientific evidence is so abundant, and the environment so target rich.
And some people actually have learned good shit, so it’s all good.
Science(!)
(I will bet some people still don’t know where I got the “Science(!)” bit from)
Your ass?
One problem most of us have with understanding anything climate related, is the amount of context and education required to grasp the implications and larger issues involved. As well as the context. There are probably only a handful of people in the world who even read the following, much less can understand it.
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia
2003
Tom Wigley 2003
Tom Wigley
2003
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Tom Wigley
2003
Full text and context in the climategate emails
The thing is, it’s actually pretty easy to explain it to most people. It’s just that they actually do not care. And even if they do grasp the implications of the above, it won’t matter at all. The mind does this little trick, and they get mad instead of learning anything new.
It’s been proven by science. Hence long complex discussions based on facts and science won’t actually matter at all.
Science!
Here’s a really cool thing, somebody who go sick of global warming, so he did something about it.
Isn’t that simple, and very cool?
I’m currently painting the roof of my new house white, to reflect sunlight, keep it cool, save money and fight global warming. I did this with my last house, and it’s really cool.
I don’t just bitch about shit, I do something about it.
If any “innocent witnesses” wander by, they might ask Trinoupos where exactly I supposedly misquoted him. Which of course he will be unable to answer since he is a liar. So much for “receiving the truth.”
Then show me where I supposedly misquoted you. It should be easy enough. Just link to the post where I quoted you and link to the actual post to demonstrate that I altered what you said and misquoted you.
But of course you cannot and will not do it. Because you are a lying scumbag.
And then there are the psychotics, who are in desperate need of medication, to treat their obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Hey, Brazilnuts, quote exactly where I said you lied. You have to do that before I answer you, because those are now the rules of the thread. Oh, you also have to do it in 14 point Fraktur bold.
Actually, I have a serious answer for Brazil84: I didn’t say he ever misquoted me. I said he misquotes. He takes things said to him, distorts them, and makes challenges on that basis.
This is one example. He altered what I actually said.
He did this another time with regard to FXMastermind and global temperatures. I said that FX had denied actual global warming. Brazil84 demanded that I point to exactly where FX had denied a specific range of temperatures. That specific range was not in my post: Brazil84 had added that detail, and then demanded that I back up “my claim,” even though it wasn’t ever actually in my claim.
So…even if I were interested in the challenge…I have just successfully identified two instances of Brazil84 altering quotes.
Now, who’s gonna take my seven-million-to-one bet that he will not acknowledge this, but will continue to lie about me?
Oh look! It’s you. Again.
That’s the last time I buy a voodoo doll from Craiglist.
Here’s what you said:
I understood this to mean you were accusing me of misquoting you.
But let’s do this:
Show me where you attempted to have any kind of discussion with me and I misquoted you or anyone else.
If you can do that, I will apologize. Otherwise, you owe me a big apology.
So please, put up or shut up. Although somehow I expect you will do neither.
Please link to the post where I did this as well as the post which contains your claim I supposedly misconstrued.
TIA.
Please link to where I misquoted ANYONE.
Failing that, please admit that you are wrong and apologize.
Look out Trin. You could end up on…The List.
Yup, it’s possible. By the way, do you agree with his accusations of misquotation?
Because in a real discussion people won’t just believe you, especially when you are known to lie like a fuckhead.
Really? Wanna bet?
You owe me a fuckton of money.
Like it was said, you are a known liar, and dishonest.
Of course now you will weasel, evade and continue to lie, but it’s pretty obvious you have no honor, or care about the truth.
Now of course if there is evidence Brazil actually did lie, misquote or make shit up, he is in the same boat.
But you have to actually do the research to show this, otherwise you are a lazy and dishonest fuckhead.