Joe D’Aleo sent this over. The average of -1 and -1 is zero.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/product.php?site=LOT&issuedby=ORD&product=CLI&format=CI&version=7&glossary=0
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Bill on Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Gamecock on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Gamecock on “pushing nature past its limits”
- William on Mission Accomplished
- Gordon Vigurs on Mission Accomplished
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- Bob G on Mission Accomplished
- James Snook on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- czechlist on Mission Accomplished
- arn on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
Well, if you do not round your normal average the same as your observed average, what would you expect?
Far more importantly, what is the average year?
Or the average phone number…
Then they proceed to compute the planet’s temp to the thousandth of degree…
As above, if you have the year to four digits, I’m sure everything is four digits (or more, if you have enough years). Given that they have more than 100 years, they should be able to calculate the temperature to five decimal places.
Let’s look at it this way: my grandfather owned 25 cars between 1930 & 1998. That means that he owned an average of 0.36231884 cars per year. Since you only know the years to four digits, that’s 0.3623 cars per year, still not enough to drive. Therefore, as a climate scientist I can accurately predict that my grandfather will begin driving when he can average one or more cars per year: 2040. The fact that he’s dead has no appreciable effect on that (or his voting record).
I think everyone is looking at this wrong. If you look at the observed value average it is 57. The normal value average is also 57. So the change (the departure from normal) is zero. You need to read across, not down.
They rounded the actual up, and the climatology down. That makes the departure consistently too high.
The maths is actually OK.
67 – 68 = -1
46 – 47 = -1
The problem is the lay-out. They put the anomalies under “Departure From Normal” which suggests that the final number is the sum of the rounded anomalies, when in fact the calculation appears to be Observed Value – Normal Value. Confusing and misleading, that is all.
The math is definitely not OK.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/noaa-chicago-temperature-records-are-corrupted-upwards/
I take your point. Dcb283’s ‘defence’ was a bit of a red herring.
observed temp
67 + 46 = 113
113/2 = 56.5……….but counted as average 57…….rounded up
normal value
68 + 47 = 115
115/2 = 57.5………but counted as 57……rounded down!
max -1
min =1
avg 0 ????????
good grief…are we back under moderation again! LOL
I have one in the trash bin……………