Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
Interpret this graph as you will, but I see an upward trend since about the 1970s. I’d hesitate to attach much significance to the downward trend since about 2000 – duration too short to conclude much.
Besides, 2010 is still above the long term average.
You cherry picked—again.
I’d hesitate to attach much significance to the downward trend since about 2000
Well, of course! You’re a clone. That’s something you’d do.
The downward trend from 1925 to 1970 is a lot longer than the upward trend from 1970 to 2003
How’s that for picking?
“Besides, 2010 is still above the long term average.”
Odds are you could say that about 50% of the years………
You’re right, there does seem to be a downward trend over about 1925-1970. It is long, but not very steep.
As for cherries, doesn’t it strike you that except for 1993 (or so), ALL the points since 1990 are above the average line?
But as I said, you’re free to interpret the graph as you see fit.
Sense, how did it get so warm in the 30s? Why did we have a downward trend afterward? Didn’t CO2 emissions increase significantly during that time period? Regardless of the mid-line, can you not see a sine wave?
Sense Seeker says:
December 15, 2010 at 1:23 am
As for cherries, doesn’t it strike you that except for 1993 (or so), ALL the points since 1990 are above the average line?
Since it is a very short data set, no, it doesn’t strike anything. But of course you see the end of the world.
Go ahead, cherrypick the positive PDO. I double dog dare you!!!!!
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/nsidc-records-start-at-peak-ice/#comments
Nice name Mike. At least you state your convictions upfront.
I’m not sure of the purpose of the link you put in?
Sense Seeker says:
December 15, 2010 at 1:25 am
I’m not sure of the purpose of the link you put in?
It is clear you don’t want to be sure of anything you disagree with.
I still am wondering if you have ever used a different name in the past, any time in the past. Because you are exactly like another commenter I have seen.
Sense Seeker says:
December 15, 2010 at 1:25 am
I’m not sure of the purpose of the link you put in?
It’s a very simple post. The point of it is very simple. Why can’t you understand it?
You’d rather stay in your smugness than really look at things.
Temperatures have risen since the ice age scare? What a surprise.
Besides, 2010 is still above the long term average.
You wouldn’t attach much significance to a decade. But when it comes to one year there’s something for you to note. Thanks for letting everyone see you confirm you are a cherry picker. And one of rare form I might add.
cherry pick this.
and how ’bout this
anything shorter is cherry picking.
Peter Your links do not work!
They work for me. Nice cherries, Peter!
LOL thanks.
at least we can keep a sense of humor.
And now they do work!
Yes 13,000 years or even 450,000 years would display global climate variations.
and global cooling.
talk about cherry picking. 100 years? cooling
1000 years? cooling
4000 years? cooling
10,000 years? cooling
125,000 years? cooling
2,000,000 years? cooling
200,000,000 years? cooling.
2,000,000,ooo years? cooling
5,000,000,000 years? you guessed it. cooling!
thanks mike. ineresting they work when i click on them….??
hmmm try
this
and
this.
let’s try that second one again
“ALL the points since 1990 are above the average line?”
Do you have any idea why?
I’ll give you a hint.
From around the 1940’s – 1980’s there were some very severe winters.
50% of all the people on the globe have below average intelligence!
30 years is long term weather.
Below the median, not necessarily the mean. It depends on how you define “average.”
If you take all the people in the world and give them an intelligence test that resulted in a numerical score, add all the scores together then divide by the total number of participants you will find the AVERAGE intelligence of the globe. Half will be above average and half will fall below average. There is a possibility that a small percentage will be average depending on the number of decimal places you assign. As one person will have a whole number result it is doubtful that the average will be a whole number also due to the large number of participants.
From WIKI:
In mathematics, an average, or central tendency[1] of a data set is a measure of the “middle” value of the data set.
IS:
# “is” (Greek isos), a prefix meaning equal, homogeneous, or uniform
# “is” (plural “ises”) is a fact, empirical state, with space & time finite limits , in is-ought philosophy
# “is”, the Anglo-Saxon form of the rune Isaz
# “is” the third form for the verb “to be” at present tense, in the English language. For copulative usage read Copula (linguistics).