Oddball
Unobtanium Member
The irony is so thick I'm going to need to get a fresh bag of water softener pellets!
![rofl :rofl: :rofl:](/styles/smilies/rofl.gif)
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.
The irony is so thick I'm going to need to get a fresh bag of water softener pellets!
The irony is so thick I'm going to need to get a fresh bag of water softener pellets!![]()
I'm sorry, I don't believe for one second that these 'scientists' that blamed mankind on global warming had one iota of interest in declining to take any evidence that did agree with their presupposition even if they found out it was achieved falsely.But you still don't understand anomalies, and you are not even curious enough to learn!!!!![]()
You two obviously don't understand why real scientists use ANOMALIES!!!
I understand your cartoon. Fine job.Have a great day.
Scientists are not stupid. They know how to collect data that is USEFUL. They know that thermometers are not all calibrated the same and if a station is neat black asphalt it will read warmer temps, etc. That's why they use anomalies and not direct temp numbers. They collect data for years at the same station and then create a 20 or 30 year average for that particular station location. They then record the DEVIATION up or down from that AVERAGE which is the ANOMALY. If the station is near a heat source the average will be higher but the deviation from that average will be accurate. If the deviations trend up there is warming going on.
That is why when you see a chart of anomalies, there is a zero point and the deviation from that zero point is plotted, not the specific temp.
![]()
No, the chart shows annual anomalies not average temp. And I am using anomalies in only one sense.But you still don't understand anomalies, and you are not even curious enough to learn!!!!I understand your cartoon. Fine job.Have a great day.
Scientists are not stupid. They know how to collect data that is USEFUL. They know that thermometers are not all calibrated the same and if a station is neat black asphalt it will read warmer temps, etc. That's why they use anomalies and not direct temp numbers. They collect data for years at the same station and then create a 20 or 30 year average for that particular station location. They then record the DEVIATION up or down from that AVERAGE which is the ANOMALY. If the station is near a heat source the average will be higher but the deviation from that average will be accurate. If the deviations trend up there is warming going on.
That is why when you see a chart of anomalies, there is a zero point and the deviation from that zero point is plotted, not the specific temp.
![]()
Friend Ed. The anomaly chart you are showing is the mean difference of temperature over time. An average difference in annual temperture. We agree that is what is chart is supposed to show. It is wrong because they have not corrected data in many instances. You are using anomaly in two senses here. (Note bold sentence) I would call that one data correction. I looked on some other climate thread. One of them had a map and graph of the US stations and how extra warm many of them were due to being within 10 meters of a heat source. Sorry I didn't find it. It was really useful (well, useful if you agree with me)![]()
If the station is near a heat source the average will be higher but the deviation from that average will be accurate.
Look at the left side of the chart. It not only says it is an anomaly chart, the scale is plotted from a deviation from a zero point, not a specific temp.In science, mean is one of the terms for average. (mean, median, mode) Please read the top of YOUR chart. Note the word mean.
In science, mean is one of the terms for average. (mean, median, mode) Please read the top of YOUR chart. Note the word mean.
☭proletarian☭;1816843 said:In science, mean is one of the terms for average. (mean, median, mode) Please read the top of YOUR chart. Note the word mean.
Now read the label on the Y-Axis
and how is the anomaly determined?
2. Placing data collectors near heat sources is a deliberate attempt to skew data.
☭proletarian☭;1816962 said:and how is the anomaly determined?
No idea. I asked that a while back and never got an answer.
2. Placing data collectors near heat sources is a deliberate attempt to skew data.
Is it a deliberate attempt or is it just stupidity?
☭proletarian☭;1817035 said:'Common sense' is a misnomer.
And yes, I'm implying that many of the persons involved may be idiots.
You two obviously don't understand why real scientists use ANOMALIES!!!
I prefer to say "Common sense isn't".☭proletarian☭;1817035 said:'Common sense' is a misnomer.
And yes, I'm implying that many of the persons involved may be idiots.
But you still don't understand anomalies, and you are not even curious enough to learn!!!!![]()
You two obviously don't understand why real scientists use ANOMALIES!!!
I understand your cartoon. Fine job.Have a great day.
Scientists are not stupid. They know how to collect data that is USEFUL. They know that thermometers are not all calibrated the same and if a station is neat black asphalt it will read warmer temps, etc. That's why they use anomalies and not direct temp numbers. They collect data for years at the same station and then create a 20 or 30 year average for that particular station location. They then record the DEVIATION up or down from that AVERAGE which is the ANOMALY. If the station is near a heat source the average will be higher but the deviation from that average will be accurate. If the deviations trend up there is warming going on.
That is why when you see a chart of anomalies, there is a zero point and the deviation from that zero point is plotted, not the specific temp.
![]()
As I have said many times before, when CON$ know they're wrong, they play dumb.and how is the anomaly determined? It is some neutral temperature subtracted from the AVERAGE ANNUAL temperature. The result is the y-axis mark. We are agreeing on the chart. What I disagree with is:
1. The corrected data used to calculate the average annual temp. is bogus.
2. Placing data collectors near heat sources is a deliberate attempt to skew data.
But you still don't understand anomalies, and you are not even curious enough to learn!!!!I understand your cartoon. Fine job.Have a great day.
Scientists are not stupid. They know how to collect data that is USEFUL. They know that thermometers are not all calibrated the same and if a station is neat black asphalt it will read warmer temps, etc. That's why they use anomalies and not direct temp numbers. They collect data for years at the same station and then create a 20 or 30 year average for that particular station location. They then record the DEVIATION up or down from that AVERAGE which is the ANOMALY. If the station is near a heat source the average will be higher but the deviation from that average will be accurate. If the deviations trend up there is warming going on.
That is why when you see a chart of anomalies, there is a zero point and the deviation from that zero point is plotted, not the specific temp.
![]()
As I have said many times before, when CON$ know they're wrong, they play dumb.and how is the anomaly determined? It is some neutral temperature subtracted from the AVERAGE ANNUAL temperature. The result is the y-axis mark. We are agreeing on the chart. What I disagree with is:
1. The corrected data used to calculate the average annual temp. is bogus.
2. Placing data collectors near heat sources is a deliberate attempt to skew data.
I explained what an anomaly is just a few posts earlier. It's reposted above.
But your post is a perfect example of CON$ervative "logic." If CON$ don't understand something, they are free to dismiss it and assume any negative connotation, and that settles it. They never think of learning something about what they don't understand.
If a collector is near a heat source then then 20 to 30 year average temp for that particular collector will be high. So for the anomaly for that particular collector to have a positive value, the measured temp would have to be greater than that high average. If the collector was near a cold source, the 20 to 30 year average will be low. For the anomaly for that particular collector to have a positive value, the measured temp would have to be greater than that low average. So anomalies are independent of heat or cold sources and even the inaccuracies of the instrument used for the measurements.
Anomalies do not tell you the temp, they only tell you whether it is getting warmer or colder in that location over time, but they do that quite accurately.
GET IT????