It's the when, where and how in reality that determines whether it's of significance or not.

Does raising the temperature of your garage that's on the far side of your yard in the middle of the night make your house warmer in the middle of the day?
Statistically more heat energy was pumped into your property in that 24 hour time line so by the numbers it should make a significant difference right?

According to you statistically by the numbers warmer is warmer and that's what matters, right?

And according to you if you had one 108 degree day then for the rest of the year returned to your balmy minus 5 that would be the hottest year on record?

 

And according to you if you had one 108 degree day then for the rest of the year returned to your balmy minus 5 that would be the hottest year on record?

Only if I was as bad at practical applied math concepts as you.

 

Only if I was as bad at practical applied math concepts as you.

So you tell me. How would you tell if last year was warmer than this year?

 

So you tell me. How would you tell if last year was warmer than this year?

Depends on the intent and context of the data sets and what and how much information it's made of is being misrepresented by it.

As I have already shown, using the graphs you dug up for my own state, the average mean temperature value holds very little relevance to anything when compared to the aggregate data it was made up of which in the case of my state shows a very defined gainful weather trend since 1950. Not a deficient harmful one as so would the political groups want everyone to believe.

The thing is, if you are just wanting a single numerical value to represent an overview of the whole of that data the averaged value that's fine. But, if you want to tell me I had the hottest year ever because I had a above average winter and thus due to mathematical manipulation that's clearly a sign bad things are happening you're trying to put a political spin on the reality of how said data is being presented.

So yes, Your average temperature value can go up. That itself doesn't actually mean anything in the greater context of the overall day to day weather or climatic events themselves if said average value number is taken out of it's full context of what it was derived from.

If you want to spin the data to say it was the hottest year on record That's fine. But, it's incomplete and scientifically wrong proclamation if that value is to be used to show something that is not what it's claimed to be which in the climate debates it's largely being use to say that negative things are happening yet reality has continually shown that to be a false claim and that one single number does not and can not represent the whole of the year accurately or correctly.

So was it the 'hottest year ever'? Nope. It was suposedly statistically the highest mean value that's all. The weather for the year itself was well within the normal daily and seasonal averages and range and limits it has always been in.

 

Can you plot the yearly averages? I can't find the web site. Do they have average rain fall. That would also be interesting.

You can get all the climate data you want at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/

You can narrow it down to your local station if you want. I downloaded a .csv file. I can tell you if there is no data available, they enter 999.9 in the temperature. Of course, I could include that in the averages, but I suspect the average monthly temp for that month just didn't make it up to 999.9 C without it being BIG news.

Happy mining.

my graphs were just the average of the months, minus the obvious data error of 999.9, for the years 1949 through 2016. I don't know if those averages were part of the "global warming" or not. There is enough fluctuation in the numbers to cover any GUESS of 0.x degrees C per decade. But what to I know, I have Darrell Huff's book, How to Lie with Statistics, and became very skeptical of all data.

Personally, I think the climatologists need to get paid piecework. Make an accurate prediction, earn money. Anyone know the Vegas odds of any of their predictions becoming fact?

 

Anyone know the Vegas odds of any of their predictions becoming fact?

Worldwide, oceanfront property has been increasing in value unabated by the CAGW hype. Even Al Gore has purchased oceanfront property. So yeah, the odds are effectively zero. The proponents want to put your money on the line, not their own.

 

Worldwide, oceanfront property has been increasing in value unabated by the CAGW hype. Even Al Gore has purchased oceanfront property. So yeah, the odds are effectively zero. The proponents want to put your money on the line, not their own.

I've questioned the validity of the purported rates of sea level rises many times since there are hundreds of old sea harbors that are still intact with stone dock work that is hundreds of years old and older and none of them have shown any considerable sea level change in that time.

So how does that work that a solid stone dock that is hundreds of years old and only a few feet above the waterline stayed at the same average level as the sea all that time? Is geological upheaval running at exactly the same rate as sea level rise at every single ancient harbor everywhere in the world or is it that actual sea level changes are still moving so slow that several hundred years is still not enough time for it to make a measurable effect on a stationary seas side structure??

 

Depends on the intent and context of the data sets and what and how much information it's made of is being misrepresented by it.

As I have already shown, using the graphs you dug up for my own state, the average mean temperature value holds very little relevance to anything when compared to the aggregate data it was made up of which in the case of my state shows a very defined gainful weather trend since 1950. Not a deficient harmful one as so would the political groups want everyone to believe.

The thing is, if you are just wanting a single numerical value to represent an overview of the whole of that data the averaged value that's fine. But, if you want to tell me I had the hottest year ever because I had a above average winter and thus due to mathematical manipulation that's clearly a sign bad things are happening you're trying to put a political spin on the reality of how said data is being presented.

So yes, Your average temperature value can go up. That itself doesn't actually mean anything in the greater context of the overall day to day weather or climatic events themselves if said average value number is taken out of it's full context of what it was derived from.

If you want to spin the data to say it was the hottest year on record That's fine. But, it's incomplete and scientifically wrong proclamation if that value is to be used to show something that is not what it's claimed to be which in the climate debates it's largely being use to say that negative things are happening yet reality has continually shown that to be a false claim and that one single number does not and can not represent the whole of the year accurately or correctly.

So was it the 'hottest year ever'? Nope. It was suposedly statistically the highest mean value that's all. The weather for the year itself was well within the normal daily and seasonal averages and range and limits it has always been in.

Ahh, and here I thought you knew something that would prove averages incorrect.
Anyway, the current temperatures are outside the statistical norms. You just need to look back further.
Here is a pretty good write up on how we got here.
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
I wouldn't put a swimming pool in if I were you, but maybe not to far in the future by natures clock.

 

I've questioned the validity of the purported rates of sea level rises many times since there are hundreds of old sea harbors that are still intact with stone dock work that is hundreds of years old and older and none of them have shown any considerable sea level change in that time.

So how does that work that a solid stone dock that is hundreds of years old and only a few feet above the waterline stayed at the same average level as the sea all that time? Is geological upheaval running at exactly the same rate as sea level rise at every single ancient harbor everywhere in the world or is it that actual sea level changes are still moving so slow that several hundred years is still not enough time for it to make a measurable effect on a stationary seas side structure??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Island_nations

 

Found this one interesting:
https://ocean.si.edu/sea-level-rise?gclid=CODD1fvOlc8CFUOBfgodowcAJQ

 

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Island_nations
Sea level rise has been estimated to be on average between +2.6 millimetres (0.10 in) and 2.9 millimetres (0.11 in) per year ± 0.4 millimetres (0.016 in) since 1993[3]

So, it's been 23 years since 1993 and the estimate sea level rise should be 2.3 inches. I wonder if our resident Maldives native can shed some light on the sea level he's observed since 1993. Is his homeland in danger?

 

Ahh, and here I thought you knew something that would prove averages incorrect.

I do and I have said and shown it repeatedly now. It's called adding context to the numbers.

Say you take your vehicle to the mechanic and tell him you have been getting worse and worse fuel mileage numbers and even show him your meticulously collected and calculated numbers per fuel up and it's trend and show that by the numbers ever since you got it it has infact had a continual downward trend in the average MPG value.

Obviously by the numbers something is wrong. Right? He checks everything over and can't find anything that has ever gone out of spec with it and even takes it on a drive and finds that in his drive that every thing checks out at factory spec including the on the go MPG values.

So given that, he looks over your data and sees that most every fuel up on or just after a weekend has a substantially different and much lower value than the mid week ones. He then asked you if you go places on weekends and you say yes you do. You take your new camper trailer out most every weekend and since you got it you have been going farther from home and even up into the mountains with it!

Hmm. Now your downward MPG trend has a context that explains it and that context clearly says that the trend is not a indication of a mechanical issue but a dumbass who can't put his calculations in the proper relation to the actual when, what and where of what really was going on in reality.

The numbers showed a strong deviation from what is seen to be the norm but the individual data sets the average mean value trend was derived from shows a completely different reason for said trend than was implied up front.

Without the correct context of what the trend is based on the numbers themselves have zero relevant value or meaning and can just as easily imply the wrong reasoning as they can the right ones.

You get this yet? If not maybe JoeJester or anyone else who's good with basic math and how to relate it to reality can work with you on this because clearly I am failing at bringing it to light for you.

 

I do and I have said and shown it repeatedly now. It's called adding context to the numbers.

Say you take your vehicle to the mechanic and tell him you have been getting worse and worse fuel mileage numbers and even show him your meticulously collected and calculated numbers per fuel up and it's trend and show that by the numbers ever since you got it it has infact had a continual downward trend in the average MPG value.

Obviously by the numbers something is wrong. Right? He checks everything over and can't find anything that has ever gone out of spec with it and even takes it on a drive and finds that in his drive that every thing checks out at factory spec including the on the go MPG values.

So given that, he looks over your data and sees that most every fuel up on or just after a weekend has a substantially different and much lower value than the mid week ones. He then asked you if you go places on weekends and you say yes you do. You take your new camper trailer out most every weekend and since you got it you have been going farther from home and even up into the mountains with it!

Hmm. Now your downward MPG trend has a context that explains it and that context clearly says that the trend is not a indication of a mechanical issue but a dumbass who can't put his calculations in the proper relation to the actual when, what and where of what really was going on in reality.

The numbers showed a strong deviation from what is seen to be the norm but the individual data sets the average mean value trend was derived from shows a completely different reason for said trend than was implied up front.

Without the correct context of what the trend is based on the numbers themselves have zero relevant value or meaning and can just as easily imply the wrong reasoning as they can the right ones.

You get this yet? If not maybe JoeJester or anyone else who's good with basic math and how to relate it to reality can work with you on this because clearly I am failing at bringing it to light for you.

The context in this case is increased emissions. Also factored in are natural cycles. It's the reverse of what you are saying. The math says there is a problem in search of the context you are talking about. I'm open to your context that is in opposition to the scientific ones.

 

Maybe this will help clarify the communication problem here.

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/meanmode.htm

In proper statistical analysis this is more to the number sets trend than just the Mean Value. There is also Median, Mode and Range values that are all equally valid in defining a number set.

 

The context in this case is increased emissions.

NO IT"S NOT! The context is on mathematical construct and number sets.

Seriously are you trolling me or are you really that thick?

 

NO IT"S NOT! The context is on mathematical construct and number sets.

Seriously are you trolling me or are you really that thick?

I've offered you the opportunity to show me a better way. I haven't seen anything better than averages.
Edit:
I don't think you have any appreciation for the methodology. It is not just a bunch of readings from a bunch of gauges.

 

No, They are members of the Stonecutters' cabal.

Homer is my hero

 

The way I see it my region improved and the vast majority of those who live here feel exactly as I do in the sense that everyone who wants us to do something to give up our gains can go pound sand to be politely put.

Ah ha, it finally comes out! ND is the reason for climate change!

 

the left called anyone and everyone who expressed their view on race, however divergent from the left.

when people learned from that and stopped expressing their view on race, the left called them racist too.

And your blaming it on the left? Isn't it the right that is the ones doing it? Their the ones that use the term "race baiting", when ever a black person tries to have a conversation about race. http://fusion.net/story/155681/if-youre-confused-about-what-race-baiting-is-heres-a-bit-of-context/

You really need to read and listen to more than Drudge report, Brietbart, FNC and other right wing outlets. Just because they don't agree with those "news" outlets, the "main stream media" is not as wrong as you think.

 

Ah ha, it finally comes out! ND is the reason for climate change!

Yes it is. We like seeing warmer winters, shorter spring and fall seasons and longer summers?

Doesn't everyone?