Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- stewartpid on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on A Giant Eyesore
- GeologyJim on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on COP29 Preview
- arn on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Richard E Fritz on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- William on A Giant Eyesore
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Gordon Vigurs on COP29 Preview
Reblogged this on Health Science Watch.
You are Cherry Picking again! 😉
I love that stacked temperature scale. That colour scheme is the the real “cherry picking”.
To me, the +/- 2 range should be the deep green and perhaps a blue-green on the minus. +4 should be pale green, and only then start into the yellow-orange-red sequence. A series of blues on the negative side would serve nicely.
This very “progressive” colour scheme makes the cool temperatures seem normal. And would make dirt-standard, normal temps appear alarmingly hot!
So – question (so I can respond to a AGW supporter): all trend lines show either flat (RSS) or lowering of temperatures. Fine. I accept that. But, if someone says, “Well, if 2012 is an outlier on the high side, why not 2013 on the low side?” So, how does one answer such a person?
Thanks, Steve – you have a great blog!
My responses would be as follows.
First, 2012 should not appear as a genuine outlier if you use actual data instead of fabricated ones.
Second, in statistics, when there are major outliers, it is common to remove them from the series and see what that does to the results. If the results (trend in this case) are substantially the same, then it makes no difference to anything. If they’re not the same, that might argue for leaving them out. But the change in trend could go in either direction! If one removes one high outlier and one low outlier from the last two years of a temperature series, the effect of that could just as easily go in either direction. You have to actually calculate it.
Third, if one smooths a temperature series with say a 3- to 5-year centered moving average, then that can give a more realistic picture of the trend, even if the outliers are left in. Steven doesn’t use moving averages in his posts (as far as I’ve seen), but in my experience they can be quite valuable in revealing what’s really going on.
The 3- to 5-year moving averages right now are such that even with the outliers included, they are still far from flat. I’m not sure if I can lay my fingers on some proof of that at the moment, but that’s been my observation since 2006, and it’s been quite consistent since then.
If I have time to assemble something more concrete, I’ll post it at my blog and link here. However, others might know where supporting data and graphics can be found more quickly.
RTF