The map above shows typical HadCRUT land coverage in the 1860s. Land coverage is well below 10%, yet global temperatures are reported to 0.001 precision. A complete farce.
-
Archives
-
Recent Posts
- Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Earth Day 1901
- Earth Day 1928
- NOAA : Cheating For 840 Months In A Row
- Jeff Masters : An American Traditionalist
- Michael Mann – The Human Proxy
- Ice Free Arctic Trajectory
- A Disturbing Trend In Atmospheric CO2
- 1950 Shock News : A Whole New Atmosphere
- Opinion : It Is Difficult To Enjoy Life When You Are Severely Neurotic
- Measure This …. Heidi
- 600% Permanent Drought Returns To The Southwest
- Put The Secret Service In Charge Of The Budget
- Weather Statistics For Mental Midgets
- Global Warming Sunday Sermon
- Time For A New Ice Age Scare?
- Why Hansen’s 1981 Predictions Have Come To The Surface
- Mann “Faces Off” All By Himself
- Congratulations To NOAA And Jeff Masters
- Mann-Made Climate Change In The Himalayas
- Three Days Of Normal Ice
- Site Was Hacked Yesterday
- Earth Day In The Capital Of Greenland
- Earth Day 65 Years Ago : Life Expectancy In Greenland Was 25 Years
- Global Warming Turned Wonkette Into A Newt
May 2012 M T W T F S S « Apr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Recent Comments
- Steven Goddard on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Lazarus on Leftists Increasingly Frightened By Free Speech And Debate
- Lazarus on NOAA : Cheating For 840 Months In A Row
- vksonakia on Exposing The Fake Scientists
- vksonakia on Exposing The Fake Scientists
- Lazarus on NOAA : Cheating For 840 Months In A Row
- Jimbo on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- F. Guimaraes on Time For A New Ice Age Scare?
- F. Guimaraes on Time For A New Ice Age Scare?
- F. Guimaraes on Time For A New Ice Age Scare?
Partners
I would like to retroactively nominate HADCRUT for the Kevin O’Kneel award for scientific incompetence.
Hey Steve, I’ve got an idea, plot the globe with an area scale equal to 130 million voters. Then add in 1000 poll respondents to scale so we can see how much ‘coverage’ Harris had in the last Presidential election. Now wouldn’t that be neat to see?
Damn statistics.
Oh hell, I’ll make it easy for you:
510072000 = Earth’s surface area
130000000 = Presidential election voters
0.25486598 = area per voter
5210 = Harris Interactive Online Poll
1328 km^2 = Global area represented by poll participants
Now, I chose Harris because they had the largest number of participants. Don’t want to be accused of intentionally skewing the results.
Let’s see, what has an area of 1328 km^2? Hmm … how about Phoenix; 1,338.3 km^2.
So, if the map of the Earth represented US presidential election voters, Harris Interactive used station coverage equal to the city of Phoenix (plus a fraction of a pixel).
Put it up Steve, let the world see how wacky these statisticians are.
Now, for extra credit, how large of an area would each poll respondent have to influence to get 100% coverage of the globe?
If my lack of sleep hasn’t impaired my spreadsheet abilities, I come up with a circle with a radius of 176km.
Kevin,
If your Harris Poll participants are all from northeast quarter of the country and California, you can’t reliably use those results to presume how Oklamoma or Utah will go in the election. Or even tell who is going to win the election. There are regional differences among voters and even more so and more unpredictably with weather.
“Oklahoma” damned typos!
conservatives don’t poll….
…they hang up
Looking at the map, my comparison with the US isn’t that great. There are maybe just enough stations to make a little sense of things, but it would apply to Asia, South America, Africa, et al.
Idiotic analogy. There are huge variances in temperature (60C) at different geographic locations on Earth, and you are trying to extrapolate to within 0.01C?
F– on your report card. That is F***ing stupid.
Lmao! Kevin thinks the pollsters are accurate. 3 separate Florida primary polls conducted Jan 22, with a margin of error of +/-4 % had Gingrich ahead each poll respectively had him 41, 34, and 29%.
Not only were they just wrong. Their margins’ of errors were wrong on that particular day. That’s a great analogy Kevin!
Political polling is closer to a science than is climate science.
Rasmussen has it down to a science.
His last poll for the Florida primary, taken a couple days before the vote, had “Romney up by 16 points with 44% support. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is a distant second at 28%. ”
The actual results were: Romney 46%, Gingrich 32%.
Rassmussen’s margin of error was +- 4% with a 95% level of confidence.
Compared to Mann and company, Rassmussen is a scientific genius. Not only does he explain his methodology, he puts all his data on his public website, for all the world to see. He makes a public pronouncement of his hypothesis, and then his hypothesis is confirmed or refuted, in public, and announced to the world.
Oh, forgot, Kevin if you doubt this, go here, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_republican_presidential_primary-1597.html
Scroll down for the historical polls. You’ll see two of the mentioned polls.
There are 1000 variations in temperature on one small hill. 6000 monitoring places for IPCC can tell accurately for 6 hills; if they take the temperature for EVERY 10 minutes in 24h; because is not same temperature for all the 24h on that, and any other place. That is only for 3m above the ground… what about the temperature that constantly changes at 54m, 76m, 345, doesn’t that count? Calling their temp monitoring GLOBAL temperature monitoring, is only fodder for the Urban Sheep / jobs for the psychiatrists
Good thinking Kevin.
Let’s knock off all the hundreds of temperature stations we currently use and stick with couple of dozen.
I’ll start the ball rolling with one for Africa, Calvinia – the ONLY rural station in Africa with a half reasonable record back to 1941.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=141686180000&data_set=13&num_neighbors=1
Interesting plot there in the early 1900′s..
I am the first to admit that I am mathematically challenged, but my god, how can statisics help you when whole continents are missing, not to speak of the oceans?
I know enough about statistics to know that they are commonly used to mislead, even with a lot better data sets than these.
I know from my car thermometer that there can be a 10 degree difference from driving thru a park compared to driving thru a developed area. In the middle of a hot day. Also from what the “official” temperature supposedly is.
Plus what kind of quality control was there in 1865? The Weather Bureau did not even exist then. Were some of these readings not taken in a shelter and exposed to the sun? Or the heat of buildings? Were they in an open area or under trees? Near bodies of water? At least then you didn’t have runways and jet exhaust to bump things up.
Andy, you have proven that: climatologist know less than people that haven’t being brainwashed / indoctrinated in the lunacy. ONE DOESN’T NEED TO BE A BIRD, TO KNOW IF THE EGG IS ROTTEN. What they do, is rotten to the last taxpayer’s $$$
“conservatives don’t poll….
…they hang up”
Very funny, and very true.
I’m thinking of building another garage. Should I just estimate the length of my boards, or actually measure them? Which method would give me a useful structure?
Let’s get some statisticians to help us sort all that out.
Call Gallup’s new agent — Kev
Goddard, welcome to the club. I have being trying for over a year to point to everybody that: all data is useless, therefore useful for the Swindlers only.
1] hottest minute of every day is not on same time every day. The warmth on the OTHER 1439 minutes is equally important. Sahara has hotter days than Brazil, BUT COLDER NIGHTS. If Brazil is turned into desert – will have hotter days than now; but that is not WARMER PLANET, nights would have become much colder!
2] Unlike on the moon, on earth the warmth distribution is 3 dimensional. Unless is taken all warmth in the troposphere = makes it completely misleading! The rule is: if upper troposphere is warmer (because of dimming affect) on the ground days are cooler / nights warmer. Lack of dimming affect gases CO2 + H2O in the atmosphere > days are hotter / nights much colder; NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING, or GLOBAL cooling / just ”self adjusting mechanism”
3] in Europe + USA can be 5C warmer – needs in Oceania to be cooler by 0,5C, to equalise; because Oceania is 10 times larger area. Compare the number of thermometers they have in Europe / USA, with the number of thermometers in Oceania. They know that they are lying; the data collected / released is only as B/S fodder for the ignorant B/S addicts. If they don’t cook the data – from the monitoring places would show that in July the planet is warmer by 8-9C, than in December. It’s same as saying: the planet is warmer by 12C at lunch time than before sunrise…?! Insult to human intelligence! The laws of physics and my formulas prove that: GLOBAL temperature overall is ALWAYS THE SAME; only warmth and coldness swap places; otherwise winds wouldn’t have existed. It’s all proven, time is against the Conspirators.
Hey Stefan! So very well said. This is why I refuse to go into the weeds with these pseudo-intellectuals. That, and it is completely unnecessary. The value of Steven’s historical postings is the clear perspective they provide, that no amount of statisticians could ever hope to give, or conive.
Based upon our current knowledge, only a meglomaniac would presume that he could answer the climate conundrum.
Now I need a beer.
Don’t forget about the heat capacity of H2O… and yeah, atmos is 3D, and contents is variable-mobile over time, and spatially too (daily).
Also, temp-station conditions are variable (multi-yearly): comparisons backwards in time should reasonably have error-bars such that they render the warmist pseudo-calculations of deltas as so much bovine extrusion.
Problem is that the hippies of the world turned ‘science’ into their religion, in the full sense of the word, DECADES ago (or longer? centuries?). And promptly became super-fanatical and evangelical. Combined with that every single hippie is free from the evil tyranny of ‘truth’ (like, dude, everyone has their, like, you know, equally valid, own ‘interpretation’)… well, what did anyone expect from a bunch of stupid nihilists?
Autodidacticism has always been a necessary requirement for ‘science’ to exist: if there is anything more inherently anti-hippie than the practice of that, I can’t think of it right now.
@ Gator
Thanks for your support. Do you know why Australia is the driest continent? A: because water is the main ingredient in beer. I’ll have the second one, it’s too hot here… poor buggers in Europe are freezing…
Utterly ludicrous.
My family has some ranchland in South Dakota at 44.497022,-102.023286. I guarantee you that the only thermometers in all of human history until the 1980s were ancient mercury-based jobs. Even those didn’t arrive on the property until the early 1900s.
Nobody — not Native Americans, not the ranchers who lived there, nor anyone else — has the slightest idea of what the accurate temperature a hundred years or more ago was. No one ever knew. It was either “hot,” “cold,” or “somewhere in between.”
It’s idiotic crap like this that lets me know that AGW is utter nonsense. Its advocates can’t admit that they have no idea of true past temperatures, for no other reason than accurate thermometers didn’t exist until the digital age.
Nobody — but NOBODY knows the true temperature anywhere a hundred years ago. If they claim they do, they’re just ignorant.
It isn’t the calculation of an absurd accuracy of a mean that is so bad. That’s merely a waste of time. It’s the extrapolation of that mean beyond all sense that really hurts.