Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 01:28pm PT
|
Sketch thinks that because the current global sea ice anomaly reaches the average of a declining period, then it must be the same as it was 34 years ago.
Sketch is kinda funny that way.
Late '79 is below the mean. Today, it's above the mean.
And there's your answer Sketch. The early yearly cycle had to fall to reach the average. Today the yearly cycle has to rise to reach the average.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 01:39pm PT
|
The average is calculated from 1979 to 2008, which is a declining period, dumbass.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 01:42pm PT
|
How nice. You accuse me of lying and then back away from proving it.
I just played a sketch. Remember that that you often call people dishonest and liars and of course without proving it. What you wrote are of course also dishonest if you actually had some knowledge about the subject.
Ok, I have seen that pic but I asked you to clarify what you meant.
Late '79 is below the mean. Today, it's above the mean.
So that were your point. I expected something like that. My first response is of course still correct. You just show that you are not able to analyze data if you think that actually means anything important. You should look up means, trends and variance.
So really whats is your point? The data show that the trend is decreasing, that the for example 5 year mean from 1979 is higher than the 5 year mean that stops today. So the total sea ice area is decreasing but the variability is large enough such that the level today is higher than the level 1979.
The clue might be that the area at the end of 1979 where below the mean of that period but the area today is above the mean for this period.
Cheery picking two data points for on analysis is really not a good data analysis method.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 01:44pm PT
|
Of course that "average" has been set by no other than the consensus "climate scientist" that deem the dooms day AGW scenario must continue.
One of the stupidest things I have read on this thread.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 01:49pm PT
|
weve been arguing the same .06 for over a year, and that hasnt become .07 yet??? HUH?
What are you talking about?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 01:52pm PT
|
Of course it is, Phooole
The truth usually is "stupid" to all those that choose to live in the world of fantasy.
Yes, it really is hard to fathom that the great scientism conspiracy have started to use the evil fake tool of average in their quest for world domination!
(did I understand your last posts correctly?)
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 01:52pm PT
|
That's the period Sketch has been talking about, Chief.
Is it ok if I talk about the same period, or would you rather change the subject?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 02:05pm PT
|
It is often quite hard to follow the connection between the chiefs posts. A comment about an average became a discussion about evolution and that we all are going to die after a couple of posts.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 02:48pm PT
|
LOL, Sketch. You forgot about the early years having to cycle down to the average, while the later years have to cycle up to the average.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 03:02pm PT
|
Dang you are stupid, Sketch. Most of 79 was well above average.
Most of the 80's was above average as well.
You've got a fascinating mind, Sketch. You classify it as cycling up because it cycled down to below the line then up. LOL!
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 04:28pm PT
|
Sketch you are just an idiot. It is not strange that no one seems to want to play your game on any of the threads that you participate in.
I don't think I've back away from challenges to prove my accusations.
Haha, really? Remember the title of the article that nutichella (or something like that) wrote that you claimed where dishonest lie? The only thing you did over and over again were to claim that it was a lie because you couldn't find that exact statement in the IPCC report. I don't believe that you even read the article.
Really? What did I write that was dishonest?
I posted: Global seaice area is the same size as it was 34 years ago.
That's true.
You claimed the statement showed ignorance on my part.
It would have been dishonest if you actually knew anything about data analysis. That was my point.
I asked you to elaborate.
You accused me of lying, which was a lie. You then asked me to back up my claim.
I provided a chart from a credible source and spelled it out for you. Late '79 versus today.
You come back with childish rationalizations, lies, asking questions already answered and then blather on, doing you best to confuse the matter.
Same old, same old.
Yes, it is the same old ignorant sketch. If you learn the basics you might understanding what other people post.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 04:47pm PT
|
All this of course started with
wilbeer wrote:
"Glacial and Sea Ice reduction due to increasing global temperature rise ."
Sketch answered:
"Global seaice area is the same size as it was 34 years ago."
That is the same (with the meaning he was using) as comparing today's temperature with the temperature at the same day 34 years ago and thinking that it means anything at all.
The statement can be true but it means almost nothing.
All people that know how to interpret data would of course also interpret a statement like "Global seaice area is the same size as it was 34 years ago." as being a statement about trends or average and not about two cheery piked data points. Such a statement would thus be considered either dishonest or not true.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 04:50pm PT
|
One special thing about Sketch seems to be that he is often much more interesting in discussing the insults than to discuss the content in other peoples posts. That is probably one reason that few people seems to want to play with him.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 05:10pm PT
|
Sketch ,like I expected you to believe what I said.
In 79,Global Warming was in its infancy,who do you think was researching that?
Climatology ,part of Geology.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologist
I never made any predictions ,but read plenty of them.My paper was about data and references to that.
Did you go to college?
At least ,I am honest about the world I was brought into.
And ,I do remember it was a story in Outside magazine in 78 or 79 that piqued my interest in any part of the subject.Just try and find that,I just tried.
Edit:As for finding anything on that,How old is the internet?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 05:15pm PT
|
Global sea ice area is declining, Sketch. Your semantic twisting can't hide the obvious.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 06:10pm PT
|
Burch3y,you seem to use the p word alot.
Arguments can be handled by Adults. There will be some name calling.
No trips to the Hospital.
Do you know what I mean?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 07:22pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2013 - 11:46pm PT
|
Ah yes, the solar variability papers mentioning the approx 25% less solar output of the early sun. You have at your fingertips a wealth of knowledge you frequently post professor. Too bad you are a hopeless idealogue of the progressive stripe.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2013 - 01:07am PT
|
Sketch, I have tried to explain why you are ridiculous wrong in most of my posts but it is clear that you are never going to understand.
You really should try to learn the basics sometime.
In short, data analysis on variable/noisy data is not done by comparing two data points but is done by first trying to get rid of the variability with some method so that it is possibly to compare the underlying signal.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!