Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
and what is the average change in those temperatures gumby....
Global Warming Test
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
and what is the average change in those temperatures gumby....
The average change is not indicative of the trend. The mean temperature is more indicative.
Careful. He might call you "Gumby" and charge that you're "chanting consensus" if you try to explain things to him rationally, and with the facts on your side.
Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.
They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Actually, that is incorrect. A trendline is linear. The average change is what gives you a trendline.
The moving average is going to give you the pattern of the individual data sets and there relation to the overall trendline. It is not linear. It shows the relation to the trendline that will give you indicators as to whether you should expect future increases or decreases. (in your example, it would show that the average temperature was above the trendline over those ten years.)
Look at tinfoils graph above.... the line connecting the triangles is going to give you your moving average. But the trend line is going to be drawn from peak to peak or from trough to trough.
If we were to look back at the past twenty years, it would show a different trendline (which would show an increase and warming).
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, I am limited to a quota of two gumbys.... and I am already full.
In my example it shows that there is a spike at the beginning and end of the sample and therefore the sample beginning and ending is not indicative of the overall trend. However the average as compared to each of the temperatures will give you a trend, taking a "mean" differential rather than an average.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
ROFLMAO....
So according to Gumby... scientists don't use averages.... they use means.
You should seriously hang your head in shame for that one Gumby.
and yes.... a trendline is always linear.... a straight line between two data points.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
In your example the trendline does not adequately describe what the average temperatures did over that time. Which is why trendlines are not used by themselves. Because they will not tell the entire story. But trendlines are always linear and they have to go through the start point and end point.
SF says ^^^^
So Onceler answers:
lol.
SF even says that it isn't just the trend line that people would use. Onceler loves to argue in agreement.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Idiots. These envirowacko fascistocrats are stupid as a rock.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
That is not half as funny as Gumby telling me that scientists don't use averages, they use means.
I may have to put that in a permanent quote.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
They are dumb as shit, and this article is to empower them to believe that they're still "right" and that more informed people SHOULD be marginalized.
WHy is John MCcain on board with these lies?
This country is headed downhill fast.
WHy is John MCcain on board with these lies?
This country is headed downhill fast.
Jesus, your a blithering idiot. Trend analysis and regression does not involve "drawing a straight line" between two end points.
Open up MS Excel right now, post a graph, and click on the trend analysis tool. And tell me if it "draws a straight line" between the two end points.
For weeks, including on this thread, he has asked some variation of the question "Please tell me how the planet is warming if there has been no change between 1998 and 2007"? (obviously, only factoring in those 2 years).
Let's see if you're able to do this: knowing what you know about this area of science, would say that's a smart conclusion, or a "not very informed" conclusion (being kind here), that he is implying.
First, SF has yet to admit he was wrong that 1998 was the hottest year on record. He was wrong. It was 2005.
Second, only a complete amateur hack, and member of the flat earth society, would conciously pick two data points - 1998 and 2007 - and "draw a straight line through them" to define a valid trend.
Second, only a complete amateur hack, and member of the flat earth society, would conciously pick two data points - 1998 and 2007 - and "draw a straight line through them" to define a valid trend.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The point, which you cannot wrap your tiny little mind around is that I never said there weren't changes in between. Just that the average temperature was the same in 1998 as it was in 2007. Which means that the temperatures on average are the same as they were a decade ago. Which means that the average change in temperature over that ten year time frame is ZERO.
It doesn't mean that the past ten years were not warmer than the previous ten years. They were.
But it SHOULD make you question, WHAT changed? If anything. We were seeing drastic increases in the 1990's.... why did that stop?
Are you not the least bit curious?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
First, SF has yet to admit he was wrong that 1998 was the hottest year on record. He was wrong. It was 2005.
Second, only a complete amateur hack, and member of the flat earth society, would conciously pick two data points - 1998 and 2007 - and "draw a straight line through them" to define a valid trend.
Yes, 2005 was warmer, the chart shows that.
Why don't you explain to us the difference between averages and means again?
Oh, fuck off. This is the height of dishonesty. You have presented this as some sort of conclusive thing - we can draw a straight line between '97 & 2007, and no increase, so presto, no global warming!
THAT is why you are such an idiot. THAT is why I tried explaining anomolies to you, and how a 1-year variation is meaningless to a climate scientist. THAT is why - for something like climate change - a more comprehensive view is looked at to determine "trends".
Jesus, have I wasted way too much time with your pea of a brain. You are 12years old; you DO NOT belong in any discussion about science, and you need to stop posting re: global warming. You are in way, way over your head. Like I said, I haven't seen someone argue with such simplisitic interpretations since Dano.