tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8288444007766079013..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Let's just clear this up once and for all. Last year was HOT!Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44810007001891601152015-08-26T12:21:50.293+10:002015-08-26T12:21:50.293+10:00It's coincidence, Mark. I could have chosen di...It's coincidence, Mark. I could have chosen different words, perhaps.<br /><br />The odds in the table columns are calculated by this formula:<br />odds = (1/prob)-1 for each line item.<br /><br />The "times greater" and "times more likely" is just a comparison of two years. For GISS, the comparison is between 2014 and 2010. 2014 is 0.48/0.18 = 2.7 times more likely than 2010 to be the hottest year.<br /><br />The odds column in the table is for all the years listed. So the odds for 2014 to be the hottest year out of the years listed in the table, using GISS calculations is (1/0.48)-1=1.1.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70240062553214006352015-08-26T08:26:49.980+10:002015-08-26T08:26:49.980+10:00There appears to be a typo in the table.
"G...There appears to be a typo in the table.<br /><br /> "GISS has run the numbers and found that the odds of 2014 being the hottest year on record is about 1.6 times greater than that the next hottest 2010 was." And the odds in the table show the odds are 1.6 to 1. <br /><br />"If you go by the NOAA calculations, then 2014 is at 48% odds on to be the hottest year. The next in the running is 2010 at only 18% odds. That means that 2014 is 2.7 times more likely than 2010 to be the hottest year on record." But the odds in the table show 1.1 to 1, not 2.7 to 1. To borrow a phrase - what's up with that?<br /><br />Can the table be corrected? It is otherwise a useful resource.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12183925335437453396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10115006363808997592015-01-22T01:47:30.482+11:002015-01-22T01:47:30.482+11:00OMG he didn't, did he?
2014 definitely was th...OMG he didn't, did he?<br /><br />2014 definitely was the warmest on record, within the margin of error.<br /><br />His article is appalling, look how he has substituted the word "mildest" for "warmest"! And his usual IPCC bashing, putting his political clap-trap at the top of his article before he even discusses his article, etc.<br /><br />He is lying by omission of course. If he was worried about margins of error he should have pointed out the actual value may be have been cooler, but it could have just as easily been warmer.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50057689243067808452015-01-21T11:23:26.046+11:002015-01-21T11:23:26.046+11:00Roy Spencer is also making a fool of himself by us...Roy Spencer is also making a fool of himself by using two different treatments of "margin of error".<br /><br />He claims that "2014 wasn’t the warmest within the margin of error".<br /><br />"Reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record feed the insatiable appetite the public has for definitive, alarming headlines. It doesn’t matter that even in the thermometer record, 2014 wasn’t the warmest within the margin of error. "<br />http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/2014-as-the-mildest-year-why-you-are-being-misled-on-global-temperatures/<br /><br />Yet earlier he happily described 2014 as the "3rd warmest" in the UAH satellite record.<br /><br />"2014 was Third Warmest Year Since 1979, but Just Barely"<br />"2014 was the third warmest year in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, but by such a small margin (0.01 C) as to be statistically similar to other recent years, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "<br />http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2014-0-32-deg-c/<br /><br />To spell it out - you would expect Spencer to agree with "2014 was the warmest year since 1880, but just barely"<br /><br />Instead he claims "2014 wasn’t the warmest within the margin of error"!<br /><br />What's up with that bullshit Roy?<br />MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87065701908888300672015-01-21T08:32:38.873+11:002015-01-21T08:32:38.873+11:00It is the uncertainties in each year's measure...It is the uncertainties in each year's measurement (2014,2010,2005 and 1998) that causes them to all be potentially the top real absolute value.<br />The probability is an estimate by weighting the uncertainties by their position on the temperature axis. See Gavin Schmidt's chart above. <br />Sou has done what bookies do and worked the best odds. <br />Deniers have conflated the uncertainties and these probabilities or odds to just throw doubt on the measurements themselves. As someone once said 'forgive them father they know not what they do'. Bert<br />Bert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33703853863205844132015-01-20T13:17:20.890+11:002015-01-20T13:17:20.890+11:00AGW deniers must look forward to a new record year...AGW deniers must look forward to a new record year so they can deny it and get another nail into that damn coffin. And if 2015 isn't quite as warm, there's another nail. So all is good in deniersville.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91189613340162511292015-01-20T12:51:10.873+11:002015-01-20T12:51:10.873+11:00Yes, most of what gets passed off as 'libertar...Yes, most of what gets passed off as 'libertarianism' - at least the right-wing variant that's one of the few growing exports of the increasingly dysfunctional US - is just a function of the narcissism of people who are really Authoritarians; since they stand at the very pinnacle of Liberty in their romantic self-regard, there's nothing much that ain't justified when it comes to crushing those who might dare to speak out agin' 'em...<br /><br />They call to mind Dr. Necessiter in the Man With 2 Brains: "If the murder of twelve innocent people can help save one human life, it will have been worth it. " billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82890849707588181102015-01-20T11:37:02.110+11:002015-01-20T11:37:02.110+11:00Lol - of course. I didn't get the table at fir...Lol - of course. I didn't get the table at first myself. It took David Sanger to get the penny to drop. NOAA confused things by including the irrelevant table of what probabilities mean. Their second table had nothing to do with the one that is included above - it was like a free gift to science disinformers.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53913079891181402422015-01-20T11:33:59.604+11:002015-01-20T11:33:59.604+11:00Victor, in deniersville, freedom of expression and...Victor, in deniersville, freedom of expression and freedom of speech means silencing all voices except the voice of unreason. As I've said elsewhere:<br /><br /><i>(Deniers) fully endorse unfettered free speech (which is the right of every full-blooded proudly conservative white Aussie male), and will do our best to suppress all stray bleeding heart liberals and feminazis who invade our space, so that you can exercise your right to free speech without fear of contradiction.</i><br /><br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/p/in-interests-of-full-disclosure-we.htmlSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64667674529110809202015-01-20T11:21:43.180+11:002015-01-20T11:21:43.180+11:00Well done Sue. That's a very clear way to put...Well done Sue. That's a very clear way to put it. You nailed it. <br /><br />I'll probably rip this explanation off in blog discussions and pretend I thought of it myself, if that's okay.DavidRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45542128855217396542015-01-20T10:00:04.760+11:002015-01-20T10:00:04.760+11:00First disinformers saw an opportunity to implant a...First disinformers saw an opportunity to implant a false idea in deniers' minds. People don't typically think of probabilities in the way they were presented here. Now that it's implanted it will be hard to shift - deniers' brains are rigid, unable to accommodate new ideas and correct misconceptions.<br /><br />The disinformer's job is done, partly made easier because of the way NOAA and NASA presented the data. Hopefully they'll do it differently in future.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4753202861591794852015-01-20T05:50:15.107+11:002015-01-20T05:50:15.107+11:00nigelf: They should realize that the Dem’s won’t b...nigelf: <i>They should realize that the Dem’s won’t be in power forever and when that happens the hammer comes down. With Ted Cruz in charge of NASA’s oversight this might come very swiftly.</i><br /><br />Given the central role of the freedom of expression for the poor suppressed mitigation sceptics, the continuous calls to fight the repressive power of the state by the libertarians and the allergy of the conservatives against the nanny state, I am sure that nigelf must have experience an enormous push back, that almost all denizens responded negatively to his suggestion.<br /><br />Right?Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07433631864394071630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90563491473134348662015-01-20T02:51:16.209+11:002015-01-20T02:51:16.209+11:00I like the probability curves from Gavin Schmidt.
...I like the probability curves from Gavin Schmidt.<br /><br />I had an exchange about "statistical significance", 2-sigma confidence levels etc on RealClimate and they pointed out the curves are better (at least that was what I think they told me).<br /><br />I do find the curves easier to understand.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3904700562354031732015-01-20T02:47:21.008+11:002015-01-20T02:47:21.008+11:00My experiences is most deniers don't even read...My experiences is most deniers don't even read the articles - they scroll thru it once then decide if they will share it to as many groups as they possibly can.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48944546787938383552015-01-20T02:20:26.650+11:002015-01-20T02:20:26.650+11:00Jesus these people are so utterly stupid. How can...Jesus these people are so utterly stupid. How can the chart be so hard to understand? Are they just obtuse? <br /><br />cabcAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com