Sorry, I apologize for that mistake. Just frustrating when all of the NASA / NOAA data is discounted out of hand for the sole purpose of supporting an agenda.
Was my math wrong too? 
Who has discounted NASA/NOAA data? The graph you cited was a diagram, not a real graph. I cited NOAA data that contradicted you, and you did not address it. Does that mean you are discounting it?
It is in the text at the site in the .gif link … plus it isn’t all that hard to figure out and, in fact, should be known by someone conversant in climatic change such as yourself?
Okay, so we have one number - the dashed line. Now tell me if the range of the graph is 0-30C, or 13-17C, and I can help you with the variance. Until then, I’ve seen too many tendentious diagrams around ths debate to give that one any special credence. This is a favorite trick of people pushing a political viewpoint, btw - take a chart that shows a mild uptick in something, zoom in, and make that mild uptick look like a huge change. The chart should be marked as a broken-line chart if that’s done, but it seems it almost never is when the subject is a political hot potato.
You’re doing a poor job of arguing for your side, and I say that as someone who is somewhat sympathetic to your viewpoint. If you want to convince people around here, you’ll stop throwing out charts like that, and start posting some links to actual peer-reviewed papers that argue your point of view, and then you’ll explain the author’s position, why it’s at odds with the scientific establishment, etc.
Look, let’s stop all the sparring here and citing of “opinions” … what has the Earth’s variance in global temperature been over the last 10 to 20 centuries? year-to-year, decade-to-decade, what ever …
Is “today’s” temperature change anywhere near statistically significant?
Let’s apply the Daubert criterion here ok?
You may find the following of interest:
This excerpt is from an essay called “Our Evolving Atmosphere,” written by Isaac Asimov for lay readers, and reprinted as chapter 13 in the collection Is Anybody There?, published by Doubleday.
The essay was originally published in 1966.
Since you seem to be having trouble with math, please let me point out that as 1966 is a smaller number than 1975, that means the essay above was published before, as in “prior to,” the material you reference. I won’t bore you with the calculation, but suffice to say the intervening period is approximately one decade.
If a popularizer like Asimov was talking about carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect in lay-published articles in the mid-1960s, I think we can safely conclude that the subsequently offered global-cooling hypothesis to which you point in an attempted rebuttal is (a) just one of many models being considered at the time and (b) probably not the leading one, either.
So far you haven’t offered a single argument that hasn’t been shown to be flawed in some way or wholly counterfactual. A responsible thinker would recognize the implication that the proferred thesis is thus unsupported, and abandon it.
Who’s the one with the agenda?
For starters, your cite was last Modified on “Friday 28 March 1997”, so much for saying your graph ended in 2000, your cite is also an educational one, so they are bound to mention other points of view that the student then needs to investigate.
So who has the most current data here? Calculate this then:
Colibri’s graphs are from 2004 and 2005:
You really need to take back, besides your insults, the assumption that guys like **Colibri ** support an agenda.
I checked that. It’s not associated with the graph in question, but the previous one. In any case, it was a completely ridiculous graph to offer in terms of statistical analysis.
Are you serious? You think that every graph uses the same baseline?
I wouldn’t call what we have been doing here “sparring,” since you haven’t actually provided any real backup for anything you’ve said, nor have you responded to the large amount of data cited that contradicts it. You have been the main person here citing opinions.
What the hell does this mean? This makes no sense whatever. You have to define your time period before you can calculate a variance.
Yes. I’ve already provided many cites indicating that it is. Please address them.
The graph on the top is the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph, which I believe has been discredited. Read Technology Review for a layman’s description of the flaw in the analysis.
Here’s the Web Site of the researchers who have found problems with the hockey stick, and their explanation of what’s wrong with it.
[sub]For those of us following along at home, read the Wikipedia article on what that is. Is it possible to use in this situation? Who knows. Read the article to the end. [/sub]
From the quote I posted, it would seem my agenda is the same as that of George W. Bush . . . 
There is no effing scale on that graph. There is no indicated axis or origin. All I can obtain from that graph is that there is some degree of variation in temperature; the magnitude and absolute variation is impossible to discern. Is the temperuate axis linear? Logarithmic? What are the confidence bounds on the data points? Are the data points evenly spaced, or are they bunched together? How much of the curve is interpolation (or extrapolation) as opposed to actual data? If you turned in this graph as fundamental part of a first-year undergraduate lab report in some basic science class, you’d get marked a C- at best.
A graph is not “data”. A graph is a visual representation of data. A graph without clearly indexed axes isn’t any kind of quantitative information whatsoever. As Colirbi says, offering it as the basis for a stochastic assessment is an inherent absurdity. Without quantitative data, there are no statistics. Surely, someone who is, ah, so well versed in graph theory and statistical analysis as yourself should be able to understand this.
Stranger
Look, I can’t change anyone’s opinion on this subject. We can only bring up data and information that many discount or try to explain away in order to promote an agenda.
The graph, regardless, of scale, etc., shows there has been variations in the Earth’s temperature not associated with man’s presence here. One of the more recent “warming” effects is now associated with a volcanic eruption.
Here is another “no scale” NASA graph … to deny that there haven’t been global temperature variances, not due to man, and making today’s "global warming " totally insignificant is a joke. There is no other way to put it …
I don’t believe that the graph on the top is the actual “'hockey stick” graph, since that one shows less variability of the estimates at more recent time scales, though it certainly is similar. The lower graph incorporates the “hockey stick” as one among a variety of estimators.
You haven’t brought up any real data that needs to be discounted or explained away. And you seem to be the only one with an agenda here.
No one denies that there haven’t been climatic variations in the past that were not associated with human activity. Where did you get that idea? The contention is that the present warming episode is anomalous in its size, scope, and cause relative to other such episodes, and that has been well documented.
Hmmm … Moberg /NOAA , 2005 is old?
Enjoy … let me know what variance you come up with … then we might be able to converse based on some factual basis here ok? …
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt
Sorry, that should be “No one denies that there have been”
What variance do you come up with?
How about starting with responding to all the factual information I’ve provided?
Then it should be statistically significant, correct?
Correct. It is.