Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
would someone kindly explain to poor ol' g-string what standard deviation means.
okay mensa man i am now going to have to show how completely ignorant you are.. Again!
+ or - 2 standard deviation is what i was referring to you imbecile. Using that standard we can add or subtract 2 from the graph lines and still be within tolerances. Thats why they have that standard deviation so they have room for error. Using that we can see plainly that there is very little if any difference in the years shown on that graph. My questions were in regards to how they used that standard deviation and its application to the average they use to compare the other two years.
Now i am done explaining this to the self-proclaimed affiliate of mensa, who should in the very least be able to follow a simple analysis of a graph and points raised.
Come on mensa man you should be able to answer my questions if your friends to cowardly to do so...
lol!!!!
When I participated in a NASA media conference call on Sept 22, 2008, I learned that NASA was announcing the findings from the satellite Ulysses after its 18 year voyage studying the Sun. The Ulysses passed the Sun three times. The first pass was during a solar minimum (a period of lower activity). The second pass of the Sun was during a solar maximum and the third pass during a less active period similar to the first pass (solar cycle 23). They noticed large differences between the two minimums, that on the third pass the Sun was emitting much less energy than the first pass, and the lowest amount of solar energy ever recorded (since the beginning of modern measurement with the advent of the space program). This only confirms my suspicion that the Sun is the primary driver of the world's temperatures and not mankind. This explains the warming of the 1980's and 1990's and for the last eight years, continuously cooling temperatures
Fucking dumb, Big-Foot-in-Mouth.
UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2011: +0.31 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
Now look at the graph from this site. Does that look like a cooling for the last eight years? Do you practice telling dumb easy pointed out lies?
Ok chris I am tired and want to make this short...
#1 What exactly does the part in parenthesis mean? You know it says this above your chart. "(Area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice)" What exactly does that mean in this context, I am not quite sure on that... Does it mean they only used areas where the ice was 15% of the area by volume of sea water or ice? or what? And if that is indeed what they mean, why not use the whole dam ice area? Wouldn't that be a better way to judge ice extent for the area? And if thats not what they meant please explain to me what in fact they do mean by that.
Yes it means at least 15 percent sea ice. 15 percent in sea ice extent I believe. Maybe it is because the accuracy might go down or anything below 15 percent is not easily picked up.
#2 The third line on the legend text represents 1979 - 2000 average correct? Ok so why did they only do the average to 2000? 10 years are missing and that seems a bit odd to me. I think a continued warming trend would be best represented by a full average up to 2010 if in fact there was drastic warming as they claim... Comparing 2011 ice coverage to 2007 and then comparing them both to an average between 1979 and 2000 while leaving out 9 years between the average and the two years separated by 3 more years between them is incomplete at best and I say a bit suspect...
You need something to compare the change to, so 1979-2000 makes sense. All meteorology institution do this. Giss, noaa, rss, nws, nhc, ect.
#3 The part in the legend that says + or - 2 ... So if that is correct and their is a + - of 2 then by looking at 2007 and 2011 and keeping that + or Minus factor of 2 in mind we can safely say the two years separated by 3 years which we do not see represented here, are within the margin of error to make them nearly identical... Which begs the question how does this + or - factor into the 1979 to 2000 average? Was it taken with an assumption of a - 2 or a + 2? If it were a +2 than the average itself would be suspect as well.
You see chris that rather long winded and dull investigation of just the one chart you posted, told me some very basic truths. One; we have a error factor in it of + or -2 which given the fact there is no more than a difference factor of 2 in the years 2007 and 2011, we could very easily say there is no discernible difference in ice coverage between the two years, making the charts implications false in its pretense this years ice is less than 2007. Second, using and average of 21 years, and comparing it to 2 non-consecutive years themselves separated by no less than a total of 9 years after the end point of the average, is unsound scientifically and gives a false impression of the data. And I would say at least a bit dishonest if not by intent, in the very least by misrepresentation.Oh, the standard divination is the error back in 1979-2000 of 2 million km^2. This could mean that the error for the sea ice extent for that year is within that "area". Today of course is much lower in sea ice extent when you compare the 1979-2000 avg to today...You see this with any scientific graph that has to measure for temperature, sea ice, ocean levels, ect.
Dam I went and got all boring and dull again didn't I... LOL ok dude your chart sucks! There now you and olsocks can understand it...
Ok chris I am tired and want to make this short...
#1 What exactly does the part in parenthesis mean? You know it says this above your chart. "(Area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice)" What exactly does that mean in this context, I am not quite sure on that... Does it mean they only used areas where the ice was 15% of the area by volume of sea water or ice? or what? And if that is indeed what they mean, why not use the whole dam ice area? Wouldn't that be a better way to judge ice extent for the area? And if thats not what they meant please explain to me what in fact they do mean by that.
#2 The third line on the legend text represents 1979 - 2000 average correct? Ok so why did they only do the average to 2000? 10 years are missing and that seems a bit odd to me. I think a continued warming trend would be best represented by a full average up to 2010 if in fact there was drastic warming as they claim... Comparing 2011 ice coverage to 2007 and then comparing them both to an average between 1979 and 2000 while leaving out 9 years between the average and the two years separated by 3 more years between them is incomplete at best and I say a bit suspect...
#3 The part in the legend that says + or - 2 ... So if that is correct and their is a + - of 2 then by looking at 2007 and 2011 and keeping that + or Minus factor of 2 in mind we can safely say the two years separated by 3 years which we do not see represented here, are within the margin of error to make them nearly identical... Which begs the question how does this + or - factor into the 1979 to 2000 average? Was it taken with an assumption of a - 2 or a + 2? If it were a +2 than the average itself would be suspect as well.
You see chris that rather long winded and dull investigation of just the one chart you posted, told me some very basic truths. One; we have a error factor in it of + or -2 which given the fact there is no more than a difference factor of 2 in the years 2007 and 2011, we could very easily say there is no discernible difference in ice coverage between the two years, making the charts implications false in its pretense this years ice is less than 2007. Second, using and average of 21 years, and comparing it to 2 non-consecutive years themselves separated by no less than a total of 9 years after the end point of the average, is unsound scientifically and gives a false impression of the data. And I would say at least a bit dishonest if not by intent, in the very least by misrepresentation.Oh, the standard divination is the error back in 1979-2000 of 2 million km^2. This could mean that the error for the sea ice extent for that year is within that "area". Today of course is much lower in sea ice extent when you compare the 1979-2000 avg to today...You see this with any scientific graph that has to measure for temperature, sea ice, ocean levels, ect.
Dam I went and got all boring and dull again didn't I... LOL ok dude your chart sucks! There now you and olsocks can understand it...
Of course that error could be on the higher side for 1979-2000 avg to. So you could argue both ways. When you consider that the 1900-1979 ice extent graph I posted somewhere within this thread that shown pretty much 1 million up or down for 79 years before it started dropping in 1979 should tell you that possible 3 million km^2 all downwards is quite a lot. Would you agree?
Who's to say that that 79 years wasn't to low and 2 million km^2 higher then it was measured if some how the past 30 years ever turned out to have been on the top part of that error in 1979, which the trend would be the same or close to it?
Trend my friend.
I hope I quoted right.
Another interesting result of the dramitic decline in Arctic sea ice.
As Arctic Ice Shrinks, Pacific Species Invade Atlantic, Causing Ecological
The largest species invasion in over 2 million years is now underway as Arctic ice cover melts and shrinks, permitting a freer exchange of species between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans; dire and dramatic consequences for Atlantic biodiversity are predicted.
From microscopic plants and jellyfish to predatory packs of Orcas and soon-to-be-arriving squid…The “alien” invasion of the Atlantic ocean by Pacific Ocean species is fully underway, all made possible by ever-decreasing Arctic sea ice cover.
It is now accepted that oceanic and atmospheric warming is causing the Arctic ice sheet to steadily shrink, accelerated by loss of ice albedo (reflectivity of light off ice); Arctic ice cover has become so fragmented and sparse in some areas that, for the first time in centuries, an “ice-free” Northwest Passage was possible during winter. This summer’s ice-cover is at it smallest extent in centuries, if not millennia.
Another interesting result of the dramitic decline in Arctic sea ice.
As Arctic Ice Shrinks, Pacific Species Invade Atlantic, Causing Ecological
The largest species invasion in over 2 million years is now underway as Arctic ice cover melts and shrinks, permitting a freer exchange of species between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans; dire and dramatic consequences for Atlantic biodiversity are predicted.
From microscopic plants and jellyfish to predatory packs of Orcas and soon-to-be-arriving squid The alien invasion of the Atlantic ocean by Pacific Ocean species is fully underway, all made possible by ever-decreasing Arctic sea ice cover.
It is now accepted that oceanic and atmospheric warming is causing the Arctic ice sheet to steadily shrink, accelerated by loss of ice albedo (reflectivity of light off ice); Arctic ice cover has become so fragmented and sparse in some areas that, for the first time in centuries, an ice-free Northwest Passage was possible during winter. This summers ice-cover is at it smallest extent in centuries, if not millennia.
