The calculations of Nahle are correct. You're demonstrating your ignorance on algebraic solutions.
Nahle always referred to the amplitude of change and you are twisting what he said.
Of course, the amplitude of change is from 289.26 K to 290.77 K, and 290.77 K - 289.26 K = 1.51 K. You cannot compute amplitude of change in other way.
What you're demonstrating with this nonsense is your ignorance on basic scientific concepts.
>*The calculations of Nahle are correct. You're demonstrating your ignorance on algebraic solutions.*
Dan Kent, please show us how Nasif derives the numbers we are discussing 0.75 and -0.774.
Were did you get these numbers from:
>*289.26 K to 290.77 K, and 290.77 K - 289.26 K*?
BTW we know that Nasif if wrong in his claim of cooling of 1.5 K. We also know he keeps changing his story of where the data comes from. Your assertions of knowledge on this matter read as nonsense without supporting citation describing what data you are referring to.
>*Clear your eyes with this masterpiece from Nahle high physics*
Forgive me, I didn't guess you were a poe until I read this. Poe's Law and all. Hence my serious reply @501 was based on the misunderstanding that you were trying to be serious.
I'm sorry, but Nahle has explained the data came from NOAA database. You have access to NOAA database and confirm, as I did, the information provided by Nahle is absolutely correct.
493
The problem is that basic physics is out of the scope of your brain (knowledge). Let's try again.
The standard temperature of the troposphere is 290 K. In any given month, you obtain a meassure of 289.26 K; therefore, the change of temperature is negative:
289.26 K - 290 K = -0.74 K
In another moment, you use your thermometer and your temperature increased to 290.77 K; consequently, you would have a change of temperature equal to:
290.77 - 290 K = 0.77 K
Well... I hope your nut has catched the problem. After your measurements of temperature, you obtained two extremes, 289.26 K and 290.77 K. Obtain the amplitude of change. Please? Go on... Heh!
Nasif is citing nonsense numbers and refuses to show how he calculates each nonsense number.
You are doing the same. You are directing us to a data base rather than citing the exact figures. Revelation of what the figures mean will undermine Nasif's claim of 1.5 K cooling
Just because someone claims that 1+1 =2 does not mean they can change the baseline reference mid calculation and get a valid result.
>*the information provided by Nahle is absolutely correct*
I've no need on supporting anybody; science is on Nahle side.
First you said Nahle had problems with arithmetic. He demonstrated you have problems with arithmetic.
Nahle is not cherrypicking ciphers. NOAA and UAH follows the same methodology for calculating the amplitude of change of temperature since 1610 ad, since 1850 ad, and since 1980 ad. Are we cherypicking also?
What your methodology is on calculating the amplitude of change of temperature?
Dan you just showed that its warmed 1.28 K from 84 to 98 (using the same invalid cherry picking of extremes). But to support Nasif you need to show cooling of 1.524 K. You have undermind Nasif's claim.
Try again.
Nasif did you mistakenly sign your name to your last post?
It seems you don't know the database from NOAA was adjusted recently by James Hansen. The ciphers referred by Nahle in 2007 were taken from the original NOAA database before it was corrected.
So, you try again. Nahle asked you to say your methodology for calculating amplitude of change of temperature and you're evading to give an answer.
"My tactic is to ask for the data. Your is avoid answering.
There has been warming of global average of approx 0.7K from preindustrial levels. Comparing the 2000 to 2010 mean to the pre-1900 mean confirms this."
1. I have answered every of your nonsensical questions. You have not answered a solitary one of my questions.
2. You say the global average of warming is ~0.7 K.
Now tell me, how you obtained that cipher? Show me your methodology... Hah! :D
***
#----------------------------------------------------
#Data from Hadley Centre / UEA CRU
#http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
#For terms and conditions of use, please see
#http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/terms_and_conditions.html
#----------------------------------------------------
#
#File: hadcrut3vgl.txt
#
#Time series (hadcrut3) from 1850 to 2010.5
#Selected data up to 1900
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.000591067 per year
1850-0.354767
1900-0.325214
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: -0.33999
e
#Data processed by www.woodfortrees.org
#Please check original source for first-hand data and information:
#
#----------------------------------------------------
#Data from Hadley Centre / UEA CRU
#http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
#For terms and conditions of use, please see
#http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/terms_and_conditions.html
#----------------------------------------------------
#
#File: hadcrut3vgl.txt
#
#Time series (hadcrut3) from 1850 to 2010.5
#Selected data from 2000
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00535134 per year
20000.388644
2010.50.444833
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 0.416739
>*o your methodology is the same I applied and you're cherrypicking ciphers.*
No your method is makeup bogus figures, then continually lie about their source. Mine was to show you how to use the real data to compare long term means.
Mine is real data also; it was taken from NOAA old database.
Yours is not long term means because you're NOT calculating amplitude of change, but cherrypicking average changes of temperature.
Again, on calculating AMPLITUDE of change, you must take the minimum change of T and add it to the standard temperature; after, you must take the maximum change of T and add it to the standard temperature. Finally, you calculate amplitude. It seems it is too complicated to you...
Let's try again:
Minimum change of temperature = -0.7 °C
maximum change of temperature = 0.71 °C
Standard T = 17 °C
Minimum instantaneous T = 17°C + (-0.7°C) = 16.3 °C
Maximum instantaneous T = 17 °C+ (0.71 °C) = 17.71 °C.
Amplitude of change of T = 17.71 °C - 16.3 °C = 1.41 °C.
The data were taken from modern NOAA database.
That is AMPLITUDE of change of temperature. The difference between the minimum change and the maximum change or, in more comprehensible to you words, the steps of the stair. Jajaja! :D
You claim your data was conveniently obtained from a database, which has since been updated, so the data you are using is, in your own words, outdated.
Am I reading this right?
WTF???
¿Por que no nos dices de donde coño te has sacado esos numeros, con referencias exactas???
You said your figures show cooling (-1.524 K) not warming (+1.41K?)
Are you now claiming that NOAA data showed global up until 2007?
What a stupid argument.
You are a hopeless fraud. But like I keep saying, good on you for showing how bad denialist arguement are. I hope you get published on Watts, he like dills.
Sunspot, why aren't you defending Nasif, surely you much love this type of Nasif science?
> Knowing if numbers should be positive or negative, and when to add or subtract, are a part of basic arithmetic. Getting the sign wrong is just as wrong as any other mistake."
Nasif, learn to quote. Only one of 474 and 487 was written by me. And you didn't quote that post - and from a quick scan of the posts since then, you **still** haven't answered the questions nor addressed the issues that post pointed out. Were they too hard for someone of your scientific expertise and reputation?
You continued:
> Are you saying that a negative fluctuation, i.e. below zero is positive and that a positive fluctuation, i.e. above zero is negative? :)
Which is entirely nonsensical. No-one is saying that.
And you compound your idiocy with this:
> Yours is not long term means because you're NOT calculating amplitude of change, but cherrypicking average changes of temperature.
Good grief. That's really incredibly ignorant and approximately 180 degrees wrong. You don't merely find the difference between two different years' measurements of global average temperature to claim a trend; you actually **calculate the trend**. There is a huge body of literature on how to do this robustly which you've completely ignored. So showing a trend is precisely the opposite of "cherrypicking average changes of temperature".
And you still squirm and wriggle and refuse to show how you **even got the two numbers* that you performed arithmetic on in order to use the result to claim "there has been no global warming":
> Satellite data cooled 0.774 °C from January 2007 to May 2008. Given that the total warming since 1860 is 0.75 °C, we haven't had any global warming anymore.
In other words, your argument is so pathetic you
(a) can't even substantiate the numbers you so inaccurately characterised as proving there has been no global warming since 1860;
(b) have grafted two different data series together without showing why doing this is correct
(c) have ignored many actual calculations of trends since 1860 which show the opposite of your claim, and have provided no evidence why they are wrong and you are right
(d) claim jakerman is "cherrypicking" by showing the source from which a trend from 1860 to 2008 (or even more recently) has been calculated which refutes your claim.
You are truly a Dunning-Kruger poster-child. Not even Tim Curtin would try and make that argument.
> Nahle calculated the amplitude and he's correct.
Nasif wrote:
> Again, on calculating AMPLITUDE of change, you must take the minimum change of T and add it to the standard temperature; after, you must take the maximum change of T and add it to the standard temperature. Finally, you calculate amplitude. It seems it is too complicated to you...
Once more just on the off-chance that it will sink in - for some other reader, if not Nasif.
You do NOT figure out whether the earth is warming or cooling by taking differences between two annual average temperature measurements, whether you cherry-picked them or not.
Nasif, your most egregious error is not your arithmetic. It's that you make claims about changes to global climate warming or cooling based purely on the difference (or "amplitude" if you like) between two sample points rather than calculating a trend using enough data points to minimise the effects of the well-known noise in the measurements. I'm pretty certain you are incapable of understanding why this is a terrible error, but I would love to be surprised.
for the sort of problems Nasif is undergoing and not alone.
Quote:
"'The equal sign is pervasive and fundamentally linked to mathematics from kindergarten through upper-level calculus,' Robert M. Capraro says. 'The idea of symbols that convey relative meaning, such as the equal sign and "less than" and "greater than" signs, is complex and they serve as a precursor to ideas of variables, which also require the same level of abstract thinking.' The problem is students memorize procedures without fully understanding the mathematics"
Dave R beat me to the observation that "Dan Kent" is a Nahle sock puppet. And a clumsy one at that - when English is not one's first language, it is very difficult to disguise language idiosyncracies.
The thing is, standard temperature is defined by IUPAC as being 0 C (= 273.15 K), and by NIST as 20 C (= 293.15 K). Neither value is Nahle's/Dan Kent's 17 C/290 K version - and this guy thinks that he is a physicist!!
It's a sad thing indeed when a self-styled physicist, who is in reality nothing of the sort, has to resort to multiple personalities in order to convince an audience that there is wide agreement with his nonsense.
"Nasif, your most egregious error is not your arithmetic. It's that you make claims about changes to global climate warming or cooling based purely on the difference (or "amplitude" if you like) between two sample points rather than calculating a trend using enough data points to minimise the effects of the well-known noise in the measurements. I'm pretty certain you are incapable of understanding why this is a terrible error, but I would love to be surprised."
The first argument was that I had problems with my arithmetic. Now it is because I calculated amplitude of change of temperature.
My methodology is in print on any book of physics. It is not any cherrypicking.
For calculating amplitude of change, you must take the maximum negative magnitude of change and substract it from the maximum positive magnitude of change. It doesn't matter when it was given:
Wilson, Jerry D. College Physics-2nd Edition; Prentice Hall Inc. 1994. Page 523.
It is a shame that Nasif has been banned, because I've waited over 2 years for him to explain:-
1. Exactly how he obtained his figures (no doubt we can all find many, many ways of mangling the data from just about any temperature series to produce his "amplitudes", but I want to know how he did it). It appears that he has no idea of the meaning of the data he used.
2. Why warming and cooling are both negative, i.e., cooling is cooling but warming is cooling too!
3. Why it makes any sense whatsoever to produce one "amplitude" for 1860-present, and another for Jan 2007-May 2008.
He's also incompetent in attributing comments to the right commenters in this thread.
Might I suggest that Nahle be given 48 hours in which to address the criticisms directed at him, and to make a comprehensive case?
If, after this time, he has not made any substantive postings, we can assume that he concedes his incompetence and then we can put his whole nonsensical garbage to bed.
It **was** mildly amusing that the sock puppet refuted the argument of the puppeteer that animated it, a fact of which the puppeteer remained blithely oblivious...
...while he continued to tell everyone else they "don't understand science".
And not just here. He had about a year at JREF, starting in 2008. He's added nothing to that, even after a further year. In fact, it's amazing that anyone could learn so little in so much time.
Yep Jakerman is right and Dave R showed it very succinctly @547. Nahle lied about his numbers and had no case. Since he had no case, no-one was agreeing with him and so he made possibly the worst sock puppet in all of history.
This thread should just be left as a depressing relic of Nahle's incompetence and arrogance.
Oh! Jackerman and collaborators don't wish to answer my simple questions... Hah! :D
@Vince Whirlwind...
Babotas! And what my original piece on dewittery was? Don't you know what the term "amplitude" means? Hah!
Now, clear your eyes and stop saying lies and ad hominem:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6111&linkbox=true&position=13
The calculations of Nahle are correct. You're demonstrating your ignorance on algebraic solutions.
Nahle always referred to the amplitude of change and you are twisting what he said.
Of course, the amplitude of change is from 289.26 K to 290.77 K, and 290.77 K - 289.26 K = 1.51 K. You cannot compute amplitude of change in other way.
What you're demonstrating with this nonsense is your ignorance on basic scientific concepts.
Clear your eyes with this masterpiece from Nahle high physics:
http://biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html
[Mean Free Path Length](http://biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html)
>*The calculations of Nahle are correct. You're demonstrating your ignorance on algebraic solutions.*
Dan Kent, please show us how Nasif derives the numbers we are discussing 0.75 and -0.774.
Were did you get these numbers from:
>*289.26 K to 290.77 K, and 290.77 K - 289.26 K*?
BTW we know that Nasif if wrong in his claim of cooling of 1.5 K. We also know he keeps changing his story of where the data comes from. Your assertions of knowledge on this matter read as nonsense without supporting citation describing what data you are referring to.
>*Clear your eyes with this masterpiece from Nahle high physics*
Forgive me, I didn't guess you were a poe until I read this. Poe's Law and all. Hence my serious reply @501 was based on the misunderstanding that you were trying to be serious.
I get the joke now.
I'm sorry, but Nahle has explained the data came from NOAA database. You have access to NOAA database and confirm, as I did, the information provided by Nahle is absolutely correct.
Here Nahle's post:
493
The problem is that basic physics is out of the scope of your brain (knowledge). Let's try again.
The standard temperature of the troposphere is 290 K. In any given month, you obtain a meassure of 289.26 K; therefore, the change of temperature is negative:
289.26 K - 290 K = -0.74 K
In another moment, you use your thermometer and your temperature increased to 290.77 K; consequently, you would have a change of temperature equal to:
290.77 - 290 K = 0.77 K
Well... I hope your nut has catched the problem. After your measurements of temperature, you obtained two extremes, 289.26 K and 290.77 K. Obtain the amplitude of change. Please? Go on... Heh!
Posted by: Nasif Nahle | August 12, 2010 5:11 PM
He's correct.
Oh. My. Giddy. Aunt.
Oh Dan you were trying to be serious! Dear me.
Nasif is citing nonsense numbers and refuses to show how he calculates each nonsense number.
You are doing the same. You are directing us to a data base rather than citing the exact figures. Revelation of what the figures mean will undermine Nasif's claim of 1.5 K cooling
Just because someone claims that 1+1 =2 does not mean they can change the baseline reference mid calculation and get a valid result.
>*the information provided by Nahle is absolutely correct*
You mean like [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2710…):
>*Those figures were taken from the UAH database on global fluctuation of tropospheric temperature.*
If you want to advance the discussion just show how the [two figures were derived](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2722…). We already have the information showing Nasif is way off. Using NOAA data you both cite, there has not be a monthly -0.7 anomally since 1893. And not an annual anomally below the baseline [since 1976](ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df…)
Here is a link to the [monthly NOAA data](ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.d…) to make it easy for either Dan Nasif to backup their claims.
But in reality, a link to data makes it hard for Dan and Nasif.
From NOAA database:
1893 1 -0.7
1998 4 0.71
It means, 290 - 0.7 = 289.3, and 290 + 0.71 = 290.71
290.71 - 289.3 = 1.41
Nahle calculated the amplitude and he's correct.
>*290.71 - 289.3 = 1.41*
You've just shown the globe has warmed 1.41. to 1998 (in an invalied method of cherry picking extrems).
But to support Nasif you need to show it [cooled by 1.524 K](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2710…).
Try again.
From UAH database:
Sep-84-0.496
Apr-980.786
Standard temperature in Celsius = 17 °C
Minimum change of T = 17 - 0.496 = 16.5
Maximum change of T = 17 + 0.786 = 17.786
Amplitude of change = 17.786 â 16.5 = 1.282
So Nahle is correct.
jackerman
I've no need on supporting anybody; science is on Nahle side.
First you said Nahle had problems with arithmetic. He demonstrated you have problems with arithmetic.
Nahle is not cherrypicking ciphers. NOAA and UAH follows the same methodology for calculating the amplitude of change of temperature since 1610 ad, since 1850 ad, and since 1980 ad. Are we cherypicking also?
What your methodology is on calculating the amplitude of change of temperature?
So... What's your answer, jackerman? Tell me what your methodology is on calculating the amplitude of change of temperature.
Yours is pure nonsensical ad hominem attacks against me.
Dan you just showed that its warmed 1.28 K from 84 to 98 (using the same invalid cherry picking of extremes). But to support Nasif you need to show cooling of 1.524 K. You have undermind Nasif's claim.
Try again.
Nasif did you mistakenly sign your name to your last post?
;)
It seems you don't know the database from NOAA was adjusted recently by James Hansen. The ciphers referred by Nahle in 2007 were taken from the original NOAA database before it was corrected.
So, you try again. Nahle asked you to say your methodology for calculating amplitude of change of temperature and you're evading to give an answer.
>*Yours is pure nonsensical ad hominem attacks against me.*
My tactic is to ask for the data. Your is avoid answering.
There has been warming of global average of approx 0.7K from preindustrial levels. Comparing the 2000 to 2010 mean to the pre-1900 mean [confirms this](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1900/t…).
>*Nahle in 2007 were taken from the original NOAA database before it was corrected.*
So in 2007 the NOAA figures showed cooling (-1.524 K) but now warming (+1.41K?)
You look silly.
Your answer, jackerman... What your methodology is on calculating amplitude of change? Hah! :D
>*Your answer, jackerman... What your methodology is on calculating amplitude of change? Hah! :D*
I Just showed you and backed it graphically using real data.
Don't you have any methodology or you're afraid your ignorance is exposed?
Show me your methodology for calculating amplitude of change of temperature. Don't evade my questions.
>*Show me your methodology for calculating amplitude of change of temperature.*
Mean anomaly for 1850 to 1900 = approx -0.3 K
Mean anomaly for last 10 years = approx +0.4 K
0.4 + 0.3 = 0.7 K.
And I linked you to the [data and showed it graphically](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2727…).
Jackerman said:
"My tactic is to ask for the data. Your is avoid answering.
There has been warming of global average of approx 0.7K from preindustrial levels. Comparing the 2000 to 2010 mean to the pre-1900 mean confirms this."
1. I have answered every of your nonsensical questions. You have not answered a solitary one of my questions.
2. You say the global average of warming is ~0.7 K.
Now tell me, how you obtained that cipher? Show me your methodology... Hah! :D
Jackerman wrote:
"520
Show me your methodology for calculating amplitude of change of temperature.
Mean anomaly for 1850 to 1900 = approx -0.3 K
Mean anomaly for last 10 years = approx +0.4 K
0.4 + 0.3 = 0.7 K.
And I linked you to the data and showed it graphically."
So your methodology is the same I applied and you're cherrypicking ciphers. :D
Hadn't you said I was wrong in my methodology? :D
Good night, DeWitt Payne or Jackerman... or whoever you are. Jajaja! :D
Nasif, are you a performance artist of some kind?
Can you look any sillier?
You've failed to shown how you derive your data. I've show you [how I derived mine](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2727…). You could even link to the working [data showing the means](http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1900/t…).
***
#----------------------------------------------------
#Data from Hadley Centre / UEA CRU
#http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
#For terms and conditions of use, please see
#http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/terms_and_conditions.html
#----------------------------------------------------
#
#File: hadcrut3vgl.txt
#
#Time series (hadcrut3) from 1850 to 2010.5
#Selected data up to 1900
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.000591067 per year
1850-0.354767
1900-0.325214
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: -0.33999
e
#Data processed by www.woodfortrees.org
#Please check original source for first-hand data and information:
#
#----------------------------------------------------
#Data from Hadley Centre / UEA CRU
#http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
#For terms and conditions of use, please see
#http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/terms_and_conditions.html
#----------------------------------------------------
#
#File: hadcrut3vgl.txt
#
#Time series (hadcrut3) from 1850 to 2010.5
#Selected data from 2000
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00535134 per year
20000.388644
2010.50.444833
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 0.416739
Nasif, are you a performance artist of some kind?
Can you look any sillier?
You've failed to shown how you derive your data. I've show you [how I derived mine](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2727…). You could even link to the working [data showing the means](http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1900/t…).
***
#File: hadcrut3vgl.txt
#Time series (hadcrut3) from 1850 to 2010.5
#Selected data up to 1900
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.000591067 per year
1850-0.354767
1900-0.325214
#Mean: -0.33999
#Time series (hadcrut3) from 1850 to 2010.5
#Selected data from 2000
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00535134 per year
20000.388644
2010.50.444833
#Mean: 0.416739
>*o your methodology is the same I applied and you're cherrypicking ciphers.*
No your method is makeup bogus figures, then continually lie about their source. Mine was to show you how to use the real data to compare long term means.
Mine is real data also; it was taken from NOAA old database.
Yours is not long term means because you're NOT calculating amplitude of change, but cherrypicking average changes of temperature.
Again, on calculating AMPLITUDE of change, you must take the minimum change of T and add it to the standard temperature; after, you must take the maximum change of T and add it to the standard temperature. Finally, you calculate amplitude. It seems it is too complicated to you...
Let's try again:
Minimum change of temperature = -0.7 °C
maximum change of temperature = 0.71 °C
Standard T = 17 °C
Minimum instantaneous T = 17°C + (-0.7°C) = 16.3 °C
Maximum instantaneous T = 17 °C+ (0.71 °C) = 17.71 °C.
Amplitude of change of T = 17.71 °C - 16.3 °C = 1.41 °C.
The data were taken from modern NOAA database.
That is AMPLITUDE of change of temperature. The difference between the minimum change and the maximum change or, in more comprehensible to you words, the steps of the stair. Jajaja! :D
Good night, jackerman.
So Nahsif,
You claim your data was conveniently obtained from a database, which has since been updated, so the data you are using is, in your own words, outdated.
Am I reading this right?
WTF???
¿Por que no nos dices de donde coño te has sacado esos numeros, con referencias exactas???
Nasif, your argument is all the sillier for [being persistent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2727…).
You said your figures show cooling (-1.524 K) not warming (+1.41K?)
Are you now claiming that NOAA data showed global up until 2007?
What a stupid argument.
You are a hopeless fraud. But like I keep saying, good on you for showing how bad denialist arguement are. I hope you get published on Watts, he like dills.
Sunspot, why aren't you defending Nasif, surely you much love this type of Nasif science?
Nasif, your argument is all the sillier for [being persistent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2727…).
You said your figures show cooling (-1.524 K) not warming (+1.41K?)
Are you now claiming that NOAA data showed global up until 2007?
What a stupid argument.
But like I keep saying, good on you for showing how bad denialist arguement are. I hope you get published on Watts, he like dills.
Sunspot, why aren't you defending Nasif, surely you much love this type of Nasif science?
akerz,
your getting hysterical, calm down deary,
make yourself a nice cup of hot milo and read this.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/fzp
BTW checkout how Nasif is changing his story [to this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2727…) but not so long ago [was this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2707…).
Nasif's latest change include comparing the amplitude from 1893 to 1998.
Nasif quoted:
> "487 474 Lotharsson,
> Knowing if numbers should be positive or negative, and when to add or subtract, are a part of basic arithmetic. Getting the sign wrong is just as wrong as any other mistake."
Nasif, learn to quote. Only one of 474 and 487 was written by me. And you didn't quote that post - and from a quick scan of the posts since then, you **still** haven't answered the questions nor addressed the issues that post pointed out. Were they too hard for someone of your scientific expertise and reputation?
You continued:
> Are you saying that a negative fluctuation, i.e. below zero is positive and that a positive fluctuation, i.e. above zero is negative? :)
Which is entirely nonsensical. No-one is saying that.
And you compound your idiocy with this:
> Yours is not long term means because you're NOT calculating amplitude of change, but cherrypicking average changes of temperature.
Good grief. That's really incredibly ignorant and approximately 180 degrees wrong. You don't merely find the difference between two different years' measurements of global average temperature to claim a trend; you actually **calculate the trend**. There is a huge body of literature on how to do this robustly which you've completely ignored. So showing a trend is precisely the opposite of "cherrypicking average changes of temperature".
And you still squirm and wriggle and refuse to show how you **even got the two numbers* that you performed arithmetic on in order to use the result to claim "there has been no global warming":
> Satellite data cooled 0.774 °C from January 2007 to May 2008. Given that the total warming since 1860 is 0.75 °C, we haven't had any global warming anymore.
In other words, your argument is so pathetic you
(a) can't even substantiate the numbers you so inaccurately characterised as proving there has been no global warming since 1860;
(b) have grafted two different data series together without showing why doing this is correct
(c) have ignored many actual calculations of trends since 1860 which show the opposite of your claim, and have provided no evidence why they are wrong and you are right
(d) claim jakerman is "cherrypicking" by showing the source from which a trend from 1860 to 2008 (or even more recently) has been calculated which refutes your claim.
You are truly a Dunning-Kruger poster-child. Not even Tim Curtin would try and make that argument.
"Dan Kent":
> Nahle calculated the amplitude and he's correct.
Nasif wrote:
> Again, on calculating AMPLITUDE of change, you must take the minimum change of T and add it to the standard temperature; after, you must take the maximum change of T and add it to the standard temperature. Finally, you calculate amplitude. It seems it is too complicated to you...
Once more just on the off-chance that it will sink in - for some other reader, if not Nasif.
You do NOT figure out whether the earth is warming or cooling by taking differences between two annual average temperature measurements, whether you cherry-picked them or not.
You even more definitely do not do it by taking the difference between two **monthly** average measurements for **different** months of the year, as "Dan Kent" [has done](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2727…) whilst claiming it supports Nasif's methodology - [more than once](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2727…), despite the answer in both cases **showing warming whilst Nasif claims cooling**. (Way to support Nasif's argument! ;-)
Nasif, your most egregious error is not your arithmetic. It's that you make claims about changes to global climate warming or cooling based purely on the difference (or "amplitude" if you like) between two sample points rather than calculating a trend using enough data points to minimise the effects of the well-known noise in the measurements. I'm pretty certain you are incapable of understanding why this is a terrible error, but I would love to be surprised.
Nasif Nahle and [sock puppet](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2727…) "Dan Kent":
>it was taken from NOAA old database.
No it was not you liar.
"Minimum change of temperature = -0.7 °C
maximum change of temperature = 0.71 °C
Why do yo include all this?
"Standard T = 17 °C"
Minimum instantaneous T = 17°C + (-0.7°C) = 16.3 °C
Maximum instantaneous T = 17 °C+ (0.71 °C) = 17.71 °C."
When the "standard T" is added to both then the difference removes them?
Is it because you don't know any maths?
See here:
http://tamunews.tamu.edu/2010/08/10/students%E2%80%99-understanding-of-…
for the sort of problems Nasif is undergoing and not alone.
Quote:
"'The equal sign is pervasive and fundamentally linked to mathematics from kindergarten through upper-level calculus,' Robert M. Capraro says. 'The idea of symbols that convey relative meaning, such as the equal sign and "less than" and "greater than" signs, is complex and they serve as a precursor to ideas of variables, which also require the same level of abstract thinking.' The problem is students memorize procedures without fully understanding the mathematics"
Is this not Nasif to a T?
" 2.
You say the global average of warming is ~0.7 K.
Now tell me, how you obtained that cipher? Show me your methodology... Hah! :D
Posted by: Nasif Nahle |"
Here would work:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
See if you can see the ciphers here.
Dave R. says:
"536
Nasif Nahle and sock puppet "Dan Kent":
it was taken from NOAA old database.
No it was not you liar.
Posted by: Dave R | August 15, 2010 7:05 AM"
No, YOU ARE the liar:
Database from NOAA:
1880 1 -0.0491
1880 2 -0.2258
1880 3 -0.2095
1880 4 -0.1221
1880 5 -0.1279
1880 6 -0.1757
1880 7 -0.1709
1880 8 -0.1118
1880 9 -0.1130
1880 10 -0.2201
1880 11 -0.2689
1880 12 -0.1148
1881 1 -0.0619
1881 2 -0.0483
1881 3 0.0603
1881 4 0.0371
1881 5 0.0561
1881 6 -0.1160
1881 7 -0.0292
1881 8 -0.0455
1881 9 -0.1668
1881 10 -0.2496
1881 11 -0.3141
1881 12 -0.0696
1882 1 0.0288
1882 2 -0.0731
1882 3 -0.0374
1882 4 -0.2110
1882 5 -0.1414
1882 6 -0.2022
1882 7 -0.2031
1882 8 -0.1003
1882 9 -0.0983
1882 10 -0.1809
1882 11 -0.1420
1882 12 -0.2151
1883 1 -0.2746
1883 2 -0.2858
1883 3 -0.1416
1883 4 -0.2277
1883 5 -0.1346
1883 6 -0.0086
1883 7 -0.0834
1883 8 -0.1240
1883 9 -0.1624
1883 10 -0.2145
1883 11 -0.2478
1883 12 -0.1058
1884 1 -0.1819
1884 2 -0.1954
1884 3 -0.2517
1884 4 -0.2920
1884 5 -0.2032
1884 6 -0.2457
1884 7 -0.3129
1884 8 -0.2588
1884 9 -0.2947
1884 10 -0.2107
1884 11 -0.3269
1884 12 -0.2083
1885 1 -0.4125
1885 2 -0.2810
1885 3 -0.1631
1885 4 -0.2458
1885 5 -0.2636
1885 6 -0.3314
1885 7 -0.2400
1885 8 -0.2133
1885 9 -0.1780
1885 10 -0.1347
1885 11 -0.0543
1885 12 0.0666
1886 1 -0.1235
1886 2 -0.3381
1886 3 -0.2273
1886 4 -0.1165
1886 5 -0.0952
1886 6 -0.1782
1886 7 -0.1156
1886 8 -0.1238
1886 9 -0.1501
1886 10 -0.2185
1886 11 -0.2510
1886 12 -0.0964
1887 1 -0.3936
1887 2 -0.3890
1887 3 -0.1799
1887 4 -0.2186
1887 5 -0.1619
1887 6 -0.2202
1887 7 -0.2182
1887 8 -0.2790
1887 9 -0.2371
1887 10 -0.3152
1887 11 -0.1966
1887 12 -0.1970
1888 1 -0.4146
1888 2 -0.3431
1888 3 -0.2778
1888 4 -0.1329
1888 5 -0.2026
1888 6 -0.1478
1888 7 -0.1079
1888 8 -0.1727
1888 9 -0.0900
1888 10 -0.0131
1888 11 -0.0589
1888 12 0.0348
1889 1 -0.0902
1889 2 -0.0228
1889 3 0.1029
1889 4 0.0425
1889 5 -0.0394
1889 6 -0.1082
1889 7 -0.1217
1889 8 -0.1262
1889 9 -0.2227
1889 10 -0.2521
1889 11 -0.3280
1889 12 -0.1581
1890 1 -0.2582
1890 2 -0.3179
1890 3 -0.3137
1890 4 -0.2803
1890 5 -0.4050
1890 6 -0.2869
1890 7 -0.2200
1890 8 -0.3058
1890 9 -0.3264
1890 10 -0.2757
1890 11 -0.3706
1890 12 -0.2566
1891 1 -0.3431
1891 2 -0.4891
1891 3 -0.2168
1891 4 -0.2286
1891 5 -0.2110
1891 6 -0.2635
1891 7 -0.1994
1891 8 -0.2013
1891 9 -0.1320
1891 10 -0.2777
1891 11 -0.3916
1891 12 -0.0789
1892 1 -0.2657
1892 2 -0.1270
1892 3 -0.2427
1892 4 -0.3336
1892 5 -0.2952
1892 6 -0.3019
1892 7 -0.3356
1892 8 -0.3188
1892 9 -0.1893
1892 10 -0.2198
1892 11 -0.4449
1892 12 -0.4366
1893 1 -0.7020
1893 2 -0.6533
1893 3 -0.2148
1893 4 -0.3650
1893 5 -0.3683
1893 6 -0.2570
1893 7 -0.1883
1893 8 -0.2946
1893 9 -0.2613
1893 10 -0.2140
1893 11 -0.1707
1893 12 -0.2393
1894 1 -0.4086
1894 2 -0.1933
1894 3 -0.2241
1894 4 -0.3957
1894 5 -0.3483
1894 6 -0.3441
1894 7 -0.2594
1894 8 -0.2290
1894 9 -0.2447
1894 10 -0.2369
1894 11 -0.3369
1894 12 -0.2355
1895 1 -0.4122
1895 2 -0.3458
1895 3 -0.2402
1895 4 -0.1533
1895 5 -0.2619
1895 6 -0.2951
1895 7 -0.2245
1895 8 -0.2138
1895 9 -0.1274
1895 10 -0.0919
1895 11 -0.1312
1895 12 -0.0779
1896 1 -0.1162
1896 2 -0.1023
1896 3 -0.2415
1896 4 -0.2870
1896 5 -0.1095
1896 6 -0.1056
1896 7 -0.0596
1896 8 -0.0248
1896 9 -0.0240
1896 10 -0.0101
1896 11 -0.1880
1896 12 0.0574
1897 1 -0.1353
1897 2 -0.0913
1897 3 -0.1817
1897 4 -0.0280
1897 5 -0.0705
1897 6 -0.1625
1897 7 -0.0743
1897 8 -0.1048
1897 9 -0.0352
1897 10 -0.1484
1897 11 -0.2489
1897 12 -0.2718
1898 1 -0.0154
1898 2 -0.2776
1898 3 -0.6300
1898 4 -0.3325
1898 5 -0.2457
1898 6 -0.1873
1898 7 -0.2330
1898 8 -0.2155
1898 9 -0.1993
1898 10 -0.3361
1898 11 -0.2920
1898 12 -0.0563
1899 1 -0.0579
1899 2 -0.2803
1899 3 -0.2575
1899 4 -0.1476
1899 5 -0.1645
1899 6 -0.2694
1899 7 -0.1714
1899 8 -0.0993
1899 9 -0.0384
1899 10 -0.0608
1899 11 0.1299
1899 12 -0.2103
1900 1 -0.2988
1900 2 -0.0818
1900 3 -0.0061
1900 4 -0.1431
1900 5 -0.1140
1900 6 -0.1270
1900 7 -0.1502
1900 8 -0.1022
1900 9 -0.1095
1900 10 -0.0131
1900 11 -0.1952
1900 12 -0.0091
1901 1 -0.1735
1901 2 -0.0857
1901 3 -0.0101
1901 4 -0.0729
1901 5 -0.1522
1901 6 -0.1237
1901 7 -0.1336
1901 8 -0.1710
1901 9 -0.2312
1901 10 -0.3424
1901 11 -0.2294
1901 12 -0.3061
1902 1 -0.0663
1902 2 -0.0013
1902 3 -0.1659
1902 4 -0.2513
1902 5 -0.2570
1902 6 -0.2804
1902 7 -0.2876
1902 8 -0.2502
1902 9 -0.2117
1902 10 -0.2864
1902 11 -0.3199
1902 12 -0.3284
1903 1 -0.1915
1903 2 -0.0339
1903 3 -0.2427
1903 4 -0.3462
1903 5 -0.3879
1903 6 -0.4090
1903 7 -0.3832
1903 8 -0.3844
1903 9 -0.4007
1903 10 -0.4768
1903 11 -0.4521
1903 12 -0.4218
1904 1 -0.5455
1904 2 -0.4295
1904 3 -0.4848
1904 4 -0.4453
1904 5 -0.4034
1904 6 -0.4000
1904 7 -0.4255
1904 8 -0.3697
1904 9 -0.3997
1904 10 -0.3439
1904 11 -0.1296
1904 12 -0.1826
1905 1 -0.2516
1905 2 -0.5707
1905 3 -0.3785
1905 4 -0.3780
1905 5 -0.2461
1905 6 -0.2169
1905 7 -0.1944
1905 8 -0.1915
1905 9 -0.2103
1905 10 -0.2622
1905 11 -0.0889
1905 12 -0.1105
1906 1 -0.1091
1906 2 -0.2472
1906 3 -0.1383
1906 4 -0.0663
1906 5 -0.1771
1906 6 -0.1573
1906 7 -0.2602
1906 8 -0.2443
1906 9 -0.2630
1906 10 -0.2666
1906 11 -0.3791
1906 12 -0.1638
1907 1 -0.3393
1907 2 -0.4221
1907 3 -0.2838
1907 4 -0.3848
1907 5 -0.4888
1907 6 -0.4055
1907 7 -0.3552
1907 8 -0.2914
1907 9 -0.3026
1907 10 -0.2920
1907 11 -0.5089
1907 12 -0.3965
1908 1 -0.3257
1908 2 -0.3507
1908 3 -0.5684
1908 4 -0.4421
1908 5 -0.3499
1908 6 -0.3740
1908 7 -0.3558
1908 8 -0.3916
1908 9 -0.3187
1908 10 -0.4466
1908 11 -0.4353
1908 12 -0.3481
1909 1 -0.5347
1909 2 -0.4129
1909 3 -0.4711
1909 4 -0.5603
1909 5 -0.4391
1909 6 -0.4233
1909 7 -0.3932
1909 8 -0.2694
1909 9 -0.3017
1909 10 -0.3709
1909 11 -0.2462
1909 12 -0.4263
1910 1 -0.3224
1910 2 -0.3760
1910 3 -0.4253
1910 4 -0.3699
1910 5 -0.3776
1910 6 -0.3620
1910 7 -0.3086
1910 8 -0.3321
1910 9 -0.3543
1910 10 -0.4116
1910 11 -0.4638
1910 12 -0.5285
1911 1 -0.5228
1911 2 -0.5659
1911 3 -0.5907
1911 4 -0.5185
1911 5 -0.4877
1911 6 -0.4519
1911 7 -0.4412
1911 8 -0.3901
1911 9 -0.3227
1911 10 -0.2822
1911 11 -0.2317
1911 12 -0.1675
1912 1 -0.2587
1912 2 -0.1331
1912 3 -0.3234
1912 4 -0.2303
1912 5 -0.2319
1912 6 -0.2626
1912 7 -0.3590
1912 8 -0.4506
1912 9 -0.5174
1912 10 -0.5327
1912 11 -0.4127
1912 12 -0.3945
1913 1 -0.3698
1913 2 -0.4226
1913 3 -0.4312
1913 4 -0.3320
1913 5 -0.3943
1913 6 -0.3636
1913 7 -0.3204
1913 8 -0.3142
1913 9 -0.3535
1913 10 -0.3360
1913 11 -0.1461
1913 12 -0.0517
1914 1 0.0641
1914 2 -0.1468
1914 3 -0.1874
1914 4 -0.2649
1914 5 -0.1573
1914 6 -0.2175
1914 7 -0.2734
1914 8 -0.2142
1914 9 -0.1662
1914 10 -0.0975
1914 11 -0.1250
1914 12 -0.1328
1915 1 -0.1556
1915 2 -0.0325
1915 3 -0.1243
1915 4 -0.0348
1915 5 -0.0908
1915 6 -0.0874
1915 7 -0.0325
1915 8 -0.0623
1915 9 -0.1150
1915 10 -0.2146
1915 11 -0.0007
1915 12 -0.0222
1916 1 -0.1485
1916 2 -0.1691
1916 3 -0.2805
1916 4 -0.1961
1916 5 -0.2431
1916 6 -0.3297
1916 7 -0.2502
1916 8 -0.2932
1916 9 -0.2791
1916 10 -0.2532
1916 11 -0.3680
1916 12 -0.5531
1917 1 -0.3855
1917 2 -0.4496
1917 3 -0.4223
1917 4 -0.3333
1917 5 -0.4349
1917 6 -0.3273
1917 7 -0.1758
1917 8 -0.1795
1917 9 -0.1467
1917 10 -0.3230
1917 11 -0.1737
1917 12 -0.5216
1918 1 -0.2198
1918 2 -0.2720
1918 3 -0.1892
1918 4 -0.3347
1918 5 -0.2649
1918 6 -0.1996
1918 7 -0.1945
1918 8 -0.1882
1918 9 -0.1759
1918 10 -0.0657
1918 11 -0.1111
1918 12 -0.3118
1919 1 -0.2206
1919 2 -0.0620
1919 3 -0.2244
1919 4 -0.0733
1919 5 -0.2524
1919 6 -0.2593
1919 7 -0.2291
1919 8 -0.2193
1919 9 -0.1850
1919 10 -0.2216
1919 11 -0.3773
1919 12 -0.2987
1920 1 -0.1051
1920 2 -0.2327
1920 3 -0.0443
1920 4 -0.1893
1920 5 -0.1461
1920 6 -0.2011
1920 7 -0.1766
1920 8 -0.2034
1920 9 -0.2177
1920 10 -0.2464
1920 11 -0.2785
1920 12 -0.3894
1921 1 -0.0435
1921 2 -0.1517
1921 3 -0.1928
1921 4 -0.1545
1921 5 -0.1385
1921 6 -0.1281
1921 7 -0.0979
1921 8 -0.1857
1921 9 -0.1506
1921 10 -0.0871
1921 11 -0.2292
1921 12 -0.1082
1922 1 -0.3058
1922 2 -0.2543
1922 3 -0.0984
1922 4 -0.1422
1922 5 -0.2513
1922 6 -0.2689
1922 7 -0.2756
1922 8 -0.2628
1922 9 -0.2548
1922 10 -0.2303
1922 11 -0.1634
1922 12 -0.1588
1923 1 -0.2080
1923 2 -0.3426
1923 3 -0.2351
1923 4 -0.3481
1923 5 -0.2422
1923 6 -0.2064
1923 7 -0.3000
1923 8 -0.2676
1923 9 -0.2491
1923 10 -0.1382
1923 11 0.0255
1923 12 0.0356
1924 1 -0.1763
1924 2 -0.1463
1924 3 -0.0653
1924 4 -0.2010
1924 5 -0.1483
1924 6 -0.1646
1924 7 -0.1919
1924 8 -0.2283
1924 9 -0.1985
1924 10 -0.2076
1924 11 -0.1635
1924 12 -0.3202
1925 1 -0.3061
1925 2 -0.2937
1925 3 -0.1474
1925 4 -0.0950
1925 5 -0.1780
1925 6 -0.2003
1925 7 -0.1798
1925 8 -0.1367
1925 9 -0.0696
1925 10 -0.1277
1925 11 0.0532
1925 12 0.1694
1926 1 0.1563
1926 2 0.1129
1926 3 0.1190
1926 4 -0.0703
1926 5 -0.0891
1926 6 -0.1042
1926 7 -0.1292
1926 8 -0.0316
1926 9 -0.0320
1926 10 -0.0154
1926 11 -0.0144
1926 12 -0.1323
1927 1 -0.1318
1927 2 -0.1357
1927 3 -0.2172
1927 4 -0.1778
1927 5 -0.1269
1927 6 -0.1299
1927 7 -0.0824
1927 8 -0.1007
1927 9 0.0093
1927 10 0.0896
1927 11 0.0176
1927 12 -0.2228
1928 1 0.0323
1928 2 -0.0743
1928 3 -0.1736
1928 4 -0.1652
1928 5 -0.1095
1928 6 -0.1740
1928 7 -0.1098
1928 8 -0.1398
1928 9 -0.0871
1928 10 -0.0594
1928 11 0.0119
1928 12 -0.0741
1929 1 -0.3595
1929 2 -0.4442
1929 3 -0.1756
1929 4 -0.2028
1929 5 -0.2084
1929 6 -0.2452
1929 7 -0.2483
1929 8 -0.1611
1929 9 -0.1309
1929 10 -0.0318
1929 11 -0.0098
1929 12 -0.4235
1930 1 -0.2521
1930 2 -0.0915
1930 3 0.0204
1930 4 -0.1290
1930 5 -0.1442
1930 6 -0.0736
1930 7 -0.0137
1930 8 -0.0151
1930 9 -0.0111
1930 10 0.0479
1930 11 0.2122
1930 12 0.1107
1931 1 0.0767
1931 2 -0.1654
1931 3 0.0703
1931 4 -0.0656
1931 5 -0.0848
1931 6 0.0051
1931 7 0.0496
1931 8 0.0688
1931 9 0.0524
1931 10 0.0876
1931 11 -0.0399
1931 12 -0.0062
1932 1 0.2250
1932 2 -0.0799
1932 3 -0.0919
1932 4 0.0447
1932 5 -0.0947
1932 6 -0.0791
1932 7 -0.0709
1932 8 -0.1066
1932 9 0.0349
1932 10 0.0426
1932 11 -0.0678
1932 12 -0.0983
1933 1 -0.1921
1933 2 -0.2267
1933 3 -0.1720
1933 4 -0.1456
1933 5 -0.1411
1933 6 -0.1490
1933 7 -0.1136
1933 8 -0.1186
1933 9 -0.1458
1933 10 -0.1173
1933 11 -0.1270
1933 12 -0.2902
1934 1 -0.2078
1934 2 0.0383
1934 3 -0.2169
1934 4 -0.1913
1934 5 0.0172
1934 6 0.0637
1934 7 0.0171
1934 8 0.0300
1934 9 -0.0735
1934 10 0.0078
1934 11 0.1111
1934 12 0.0622
1935 1 -0.1656
1935 2 0.2558
1935 3 -0.0577
1935 4 -0.1948
1935 5 -0.1254
1935 6 -0.0994
1935 7 -0.0308
1935 8 -0.0503
1935 9 -0.0025
1935 10 0.0674
1935 11 -0.1859
1935 12 -0.0895
1936 1 -0.1599
1936 2 -0.2124
1936 3 -0.1193
1936 4 -0.1234
1936 5 -0.0191
1936 6 -0.0447
1936 7 0.0557
1936 8 -0.0008
1936 9 0.0157
1936 10 0.0806
1936 11 0.0695
1936 12 0.0759
1937 1 -0.0959
1937 2 0.1334
1937 3 -0.1015
1937 4 -0.0370
1937 5 0.0689
1937 6 0.1215
1937 7 0.0753
1937 8 0.1488
1937 9 0.2157
1937 10 0.1856
1937 11 0.1345
1937 12 0.0224
1938 1 0.1150
1938 2 0.0994
1938 3 0.1469
1938 4 0.1658
1938 5 0.0612
1938 6 0.0119
1938 7 0.0822
1938 8 0.0794
1938 9 0.1409
1938 10 0.1918
1938 11 0.1474
1938 12 -0.0957
1939 1 0.0160
1939 2 0.0404
1939 3 -0.0806
1939 4 -0.0426
1939 5 0.0705
1939 6 0.0829
1939 7 0.0917
1939 8 0.1321
1939 9 0.0623
1939 10 0.0602
1939 11 0.1308
1939 12 0.5139
1940 1 -0.0739
1940 2 0.1107
1940 3 0.1052
1940 4 0.2115
1940 5 0.1120
1940 6 0.1312
1940 7 0.1557
1940 8 0.0603
1940 9 0.1691
1940 10 0.1345
1940 11 0.1019
1940 12 0.2625
1941 1 0.1649
1941 2 0.2380
1941 3 0.1208
1941 4 0.2506
1941 5 0.2231
1941 6 0.1769
1941 7 0.1822
1941 8 0.1319
1941 9 0.0508
1941 10 0.3005
1941 11 0.1823
1941 12 0.1821
1942 1 0.3069
1942 2 0.1129
1942 3 0.1755
1942 4 0.1715
1942 5 0.1859
1942 6 0.1735
1942 7 0.0602
1942 8 0.0298
1942 9 0.0555
1942 10 0.1179
1942 11 0.1354
1942 12 0.1269
1943 1 -0.0581
1943 2 0.1208
1943 3 0.0041
1943 4 0.1446
1943 5 0.1205
1943 6 0.0058
1943 7 0.1676
1943 8 0.0995
1943 9 0.1342
1943 10 0.2679
1943 11 0.2248
1943 12 0.3271
1944 1 0.3577
1944 2 0.2442
1944 3 0.2826
1944 4 0.1841
1944 5 0.2539
1944 6 0.2816
1944 7 0.2747
1944 8 0.2412
1944 9 0.3297
1944 10 0.2561
1944 11 0.1097
1944 12 0.0184
1945 1 0.0559
1945 2 -0.0859
1945 3 0.0373
1945 4 0.2221
1945 5 0.1194
1945 6 0.1066
1945 7 0.0971
1945 8 0.3281
1945 9 0.2191
1945 10 0.1935
1945 11 0.1638
1945 12 -0.0628
1946 1 0.2633
1946 2 0.1613
1946 3 -0.0250
1946 4 0.0919
1946 5 -0.0867
1946 6 -0.1288
1946 7 -0.0574
1946 8 -0.0686
1946 9 -0.0212
1946 10 -0.0515
1946 11 -0.0312
1946 12 -0.2888
1947 1 -0.1765
1947 2 -0.1312
1947 3 0.0065
1947 4 0.0282
1947 5 -0.0247
1947 6 0.0040
1947 7 -0.0446
1947 8 -0.0540
1947 9 -0.0831
1947 10 0.0717
1947 11 0.0043
1947 12 -0.0884
1948 1 0.1207
1948 2 -0.0723
1948 3 -0.1568
1948 4 -0.0588
1948 5 0.0604
1948 6 -0.0207
1948 7 -0.0493
1948 8 -0.0511
1948 9 -0.1030
1948 10 -0.0789
1948 11 -0.0875
1948 12 -0.0953
1949 1 0.1326
1949 2 -0.1225
1949 3 -0.0917
1949 4 -0.0201
1949 5 -0.0275
1949 6 -0.1492
1949 7 -0.1106
1949 8 -0.0476
1949 9 -0.1151
1949 10 -0.0640
1949 11 -0.0706
1949 12 -0.2163
1950 1 -0.3056
1950 2 -0.2367
1950 3 -0.0924
1950 4 -0.1454
1950 5 -0.0475
1950 6 -0.0676
1950 7 -0.1320
1950 8 -0.1547
1950 9 -0.0922
1950 10 -0.1473
1950 11 -0.3502
1950 12 -0.1903
1951 1 -0.2652
1951 2 -0.3866
1951 3 -0.1638
1951 4 -0.0884
1951 5 0.0812
1951 6 0.0552
1951 7 0.1205
1951 8 0.1199
1951 9 0.1471
1951 10 0.1237
1951 11 0.0211
1951 12 0.2007
1952 1 0.1415
1952 2 0.0840
1952 3 -0.0446
1952 4 0.0852
1952 5 0.0588
1952 6 0.0576
1952 7 0.0885
1952 8 0.0687
1952 9 0.0882
1952 10 -0.0117
1952 11 -0.1820
1952 12 -0.0110
1953 1 0.1199
1953 2 0.1959
1953 3 0.1879
1953 4 0.2062
1953 5 0.1548
1953 6 0.1383
1953 7 0.0782
1953 8 0.1046
1953 9 0.0900
1953 10 0.0967
1953 11 -0.0355
1953 12 0.0902
1954 1 -0.2002
1954 2 -0.0876
1954 3 -0.0996
1954 4 -0.1589
1954 5 -0.1857
1954 6 -0.0899
1954 7 -0.1207
1954 8 -0.0871
1954 9 -0.0282
1954 10 -0.0457
1954 11 0.0436
1954 12 -0.1742
1955 1 0.1089
1955 2 -0.1046
1955 3 -0.2867
1955 4 -0.2192
1955 5 -0.1336
1955 6 -0.0952
1955 7 -0.0853
1955 8 -0.0057
1955 9 -0.0615
1955 10 -0.1108
1955 11 -0.2092
1955 12 -0.2610
1956 1 -0.1956
1956 2 -0.2698
1956 3 -0.1606
1956 4 -0.2479
1956 5 -0.1930
1956 6 -0.1408
1956 7 -0.1279
1956 8 -0.1820
1956 9 -0.2165
1956 10 -0.1718
1956 11 -0.1469
1956 12 -0.1505
1957 1 -0.1042
1957 2 -0.1098
1957 3 -0.0696
1957 4 -0.0151
1957 5 0.1091
1957 6 0.1593
1957 7 0.0779
1957 8 0.1445
1957 9 0.0879
1957 10 0.0165
1957 11 0.1352
1957 12 0.2517
1958 1 0.2921
1958 2 0.2155
1958 3 0.1056
1958 4 0.1012
1958 5 0.0892
1958 6 0.0474
1958 7 0.0678
1958 8 0.0463
1958 9 0.0030
1958 10 0.0417
1958 11 0.1094
1958 12 0.1457
1959 1 0.1161
1959 2 0.0680
1959 3 0.1898
1959 4 0.1239
1959 5 0.0335
1959 6 0.0905
1959 7 0.0832
1959 8 0.0631
1959 9 0.0960
1959 10 -0.0194
1959 11 -0.0760
1959 12 -0.0083
1960 1 -0.0139
1960 2 0.1527
1960 3 -0.2174
1960 4 -0.0782
1960 5 -0.0991
1960 6 0.0750
1960 7 0.0213
1960 8 0.0387
1960 9 0.0746
1960 10 0.0351
1960 11 -0.0502
1960 12 0.1985
1961 1 0.1055
1961 2 0.1754
1961 3 0.1861
1961 4 0.1312
1961 5 0.1718
1961 6 0.1519
1961 7 0.0655
1961 8 0.0751
1961 9 0.0221
1961 10 -0.0168
1961 11 0.0258
1961 12 -0.0216
1962 1 0.1306
1962 2 0.1904
1962 3 0.1079
1962 4 0.1055
1962 5 0.0928
1962 6 0.0581
1962 7 0.1210
1962 8 0.0935
1962 9 0.0942
1962 10 0.1298
1962 11 0.1125
1962 12 0.1272
1963 1 0.0428
1963 2 0.2848
1963 3 0.0209
1963 4 0.0063
1963 5 0.0454
1963 6 0.0642
1963 7 0.1719
1963 8 0.1833
1963 9 0.1838
1963 10 0.2705
1963 11 0.2279
1963 12 0.0977
1964 1 0.0510
1964 2 -0.0967
1964 3 -0.1089
1964 4 -0.1487
1964 5 -0.0627
1964 6 -0.0748
1964 7 -0.0868
1964 8 -0.1471
1964 9 -0.1827
1964 10 -0.2426
1964 11 -0.1712
1964 12 -0.2510
1965 1 -0.0549
1965 2 -0.1878
1965 3 -0.0867
1965 4 -0.1738
1965 5 -0.0609
1965 6 -0.0352
1965 7 -0.0778
1965 8 -0.0597
1965 9 -0.0508
1965 10 0.0239
1965 11 -0.0807
1965 12 0.0098
1966 1 -0.0318
1966 2 -0.0220
1966 3 0.0299
1966 4 -0.0678
1966 5 -0.0419
1966 6 0.0543
1966 7 0.0635
1966 8 0.0272
1966 9 0.0348
1966 10 -0.0311
1966 11 -0.0332
1966 12 -0.1227
1967 1 -0.0857
1967 2 -0.1277
1967 3 0.0289
1967 4 0.0414
1967 5 0.1318
1967 6 -0.0245
1967 7 -0.0096
1967 8 -0.0023
1967 9 -0.0356
1967 10 0.1484
1967 11 -0.0105
1967 12 -0.0282
1968 1 -0.1748
1968 2 -0.1026
1968 3 0.1870
1968 4 -0.0439
1968 5 -0.0729
1968 6 -0.0057
1968 7 0.0079
1968 8 -0.0015
1968 9 0.0084
1968 10 0.0595
1968 11 0.0229
1968 12 -0.0303
1969 1 -0.1588
1969 2 -0.1200
1969 3 0.1427
1969 4 0.1864
1969 5 0.1536
1969 6 0.0711
1969 7 0.1016
1969 8 0.0996
1969 9 0.0787
1969 10 0.0813
1969 11 0.2216
1969 12 0.2358
1970 1 0.1106
1970 2 0.2463
1970 3 0.0302
1970 4 0.1506
1970 5 0.0675
1970 6 0.0494
1970 7 0.0046
1970 8 -0.0047
1970 9 0.0101
1970 10 -0.0414
1970 11 0.0228
1970 12 -0.0808
1971 1 0.0082
1971 2 -0.1925
1971 3 -0.1249
1971 4 -0.0989
1971 5 -0.0573
1971 6 -0.1108
1971 7 -0.0429
1971 8 -0.0460
1971 9 -0.0198
1971 10 -0.0439
1971 11 0.0649
1971 12 0.0037
1972 1 -0.2383
1972 2 -0.1726
1972 3 0.0113
1972 4 0.0392
1972 5 0.0424
1972 6 0.1086
1972 7 0.0886
1972 8 0.0892
1972 9 0.0077
1972 10 0.0941
1972 11 0.0852
1972 12 0.2623
1973 1 0.2481
1973 2 0.3825
1973 3 0.3383
1973 4 0.2494
1973 5 0.1973
1973 6 0.2006
1973 7 0.1165
1973 8 0.0723
1973 9 0.0518
1973 10 0.0483
1973 11 0.0090
1973 12 0.0260
1974 1 -0.2241
1974 2 -0.2582
1974 3 -0.0543
1974 4 -0.0486
1974 5 -0.0404
1974 6 -0.0610
1974 7 0.0014
1974 8 -0.0084
1974 9 -0.0515
1974 10 -0.1041
1974 11 -0.0844
1974 12 -0.1008
1975 1 0.1025
1975 2 0.0027
1975 3 0.0933
1975 4 0.0516
1975 5 0.0382
1975 6 0.0255
1975 7 0.0062
1975 8 -0.0774
1975 9 -0.0043
1975 10 -0.1529
1975 11 -0.1687
1975 12 -0.1289
1976 1 -0.0626
1976 2 -0.1586
1976 3 -0.2732
1976 4 -0.0407
1976 5 -0.1262
1976 6 -0.0988
1976 7 -0.0956
1976 8 -0.1046
1976 9 -0.0539
1976 10 -0.2159
1976 11 -0.0870
1976 12 0.0428
1977 1 -0.0414
1977 2 0.1677
1977 3 0.2630
1977 4 0.2201
1977 5 0.1885
1977 6 0.2220
1977 7 0.1339
1977 8 0.0758
1977 9 0.1191
1977 10 0.0633
1977 11 0.2120
1977 12 0.0855
1978 1 0.1037
1978 2 0.0779
1978 3 0.1734
1978 4 0.0811
1978 5 0.0075
1978 6 0.0178
1978 7 0.0246
1978 8 -0.0352
1978 9 0.0252
1978 10 0.0231
1978 11 0.1649
1978 12 0.0739
1979 1 0.0720
1979 2 0.0436
1979 3 0.1784
1979 4 0.0376
1979 5 0.0864
1979 6 0.1507
1979 7 0.1109
1979 8 0.1412
1979 9 0.1698
1979 10 0.2142
1979 11 0.2122
1979 12 0.4219
1980 1 0.2107
1980 2 0.2506
1980 3 0.1677
1980 4 0.2593
1980 5 0.2548
1980 6 0.1954
1980 7 0.1476
1980 8 0.1376
1980 9 0.1395
1980 10 0.1083
1980 11 0.2504
1980 12 0.1938
1981 1 0.3705
1981 2 0.2794
1981 3 0.3347
1981 4 0.2907
1981 5 0.2007
1981 6 0.2148
1981 7 0.1571
1981 8 0.1787
1981 9 0.1251
1981 10 0.1005
1981 11 0.1347
1981 12 0.3541
1982 1 0.0591
1982 2 0.0752
1982 3 0.0242
1982 4 0.1480
1982 5 0.1259
1982 6 0.0747
1982 7 0.0957
1982 8 0.0927
1982 9 0.1508
1982 10 0.1035
1982 11 0.0863
1982 12 0.3684
1983 1 0.4345
1983 2 0.4089
1983 3 0.3448
1983 4 0.2309
1983 5 0.2529
1983 6 0.2153
1983 7 0.2368
1983 8 0.2580
1983 9 0.2530
1983 10 0.1586
1983 11 0.3792
1983 12 0.2069
1984 1 0.1979
1984 2 0.0895
1984 3 0.1947
1984 4 0.0906
1984 5 0.2206
1984 6 0.0840
1984 7 0.0815
1984 8 0.1102
1984 9 0.0624
1984 10 0.0648
1984 11 -0.0153
1984 12 -0.1315
1985 1 0.1014
1985 2 -0.0511
1985 3 0.1283
1985 4 0.0960
1985 5 0.1380
1985 6 0.0707
1985 7 0.0164
1985 8 0.0665
1985 9 0.0321
1985 10 0.0662
1985 11 0.0578
1985 12 0.0952
1986 1 0.2317
1986 2 0.1795
1986 3 0.2212
1986 4 0.1963
1986 5 0.1941
1986 6 0.2046
1986 7 0.1200
1986 8 0.1138
1986 9 0.1056
1986 10 0.1354
1986 11 0.0887
1986 12 0.1343
1987 1 0.2259
1987 2 0.4272
1987 3 0.1767
1987 4 0.2455
1987 5 0.2819
1987 6 0.2352
1987 7 0.3517
1987 8 0.3105
1987 9 0.3579
1987 10 0.2423
1987 11 0.2631
1987 12 0.4438
1988 1 0.4589
1988 2 0.2941
1988 3 0.4029
1988 4 0.3672
1988 5 0.3045
1988 6 0.3239
1988 7 0.2848
1988 8 0.2479
1988 9 0.2499
1988 10 0.2321
1988 11 0.1615
1988 12 0.2789
1989 1 0.1296
1989 2 0.2247
1989 3 0.2646
1989 4 0.1981
1989 5 0.2124
1989 6 0.2131
1989 7 0.2411
1989 8 0.2367
1989 9 0.2280
1989 10 0.2289
1989 11 0.1813
1989 12 0.3091
1990 1 0.2978
1990 2 0.3630
1990 3 0.6633
1990 4 0.4406
1990 5 0.3742
1990 6 0.3486
1990 7 0.2896
1990 8 0.3141
1990 9 0.2834
1990 10 0.3708
1990 11 0.4774
1990 12 0.4097
1991 1 0.3936
1991 2 0.4065
1991 3 0.2916
1991 4 0.4609
1991 5 0.3492
1991 6 0.4177
1991 7 0.3783
1991 8 0.3058
1991 9 0.2936
1991 10 0.2625
1991 11 0.2580
1991 12 0.2136
1992 1 0.4147
1992 2 0.4027
1992 3 0.3656
1992 4 0.2515
1992 5 0.2858
1992 6 0.2310
1992 7 0.0909
1992 8 0.0769
1992 9 0.0280
1992 10 0.0366
1992 11 0.0058
1992 12 0.2373
1993 1 0.3390
1993 2 0.3350
1993 3 0.3700
1993 4 0.2570
1993 5 0.2743
1993 6 0.2431
1993 7 0.1963
1993 8 0.1698
1993 9 0.1150
1993 10 0.1950
1993 11 0.0726
1993 12 0.2011
1994 1 0.2327
1994 2 0.0139
1994 3 0.3217
1994 4 0.3270
1994 5 0.3454
1994 6 0.3113
1994 7 0.2725
1994 8 0.2591
1994 9 0.2674
1994 10 0.3931
1994 11 0.4119
1994 12 0.3651
1995 1 0.5019
1995 2 0.6690
1995 3 0.4285
1995 4 0.3538
1995 5 0.2619
1995 6 0.4258
1995 7 0.3758
1995 8 0.4491
1995 9 0.3433
1995 10 0.3844
1995 11 0.3945
1995 12 0.2994
1996 1 0.2149
1996 2 0.3748
1996 3 0.2764
1996 4 0.2284
1996 5 0.3508
1996 6 0.3126
1996 7 0.2861
1996 8 0.2673
1996 9 0.2245
1996 10 0.2119
1996 11 0.2336
1996 12 0.3225
1997 1 0.3231
1997 2 0.4007
1997 3 0.4370
1997 4 0.4135
1997 5 0.3996
1997 6 0.5037
1997 7 0.4750
1997 8 0.4981
1997 9 0.5897
1997 10 0.6033
1997 11 0.5006
1997 12 0.5937
1998 1 0.5656
1998 2 0.8288
1998 3 0.6060
1998 4 0.7107
1998 5 0.6311
1998 6 0.6407
1998 7 0.6981
1998 8 0.6700
1998 9 0.5011
1998 10 0.4396
1998 11 0.3605
1998 12 0.5124
1999 1 0.4773
1999 2 0.6627
1999 3 0.3216
1999 4 0.4464
1999 5 0.3785
1999 6 0.4001
1999 7 0.3979
1999 8 0.3618
1999 9 0.3624
1999 10 0.3575
1999 11 0.3303
1999 12 0.5418
2000 1 0.2901
2000 2 0.4861
2000 3 0.4840
2000 4 0.6193
2000 5 0.4605
2000 6 0.3923
2000 7 0.3762
2000 8 0.4354
2000 9 0.4001
2000 10 0.2713
2000 11 0.1892
2000 12 0.2585
2001 1 0.4263
2001 2 0.3813
2001 3 0.6048
2001 4 0.5308
2001 5 0.5579
2001 6 0.5395
2001 7 0.5390
2001 8 0.5827
2001 9 0.4702
2001 10 0.4722
2001 11 0.6460
2001 12 0.4572
2002 1 0.6621
2002 2 0.7643
2002 3 0.7380
2002 4 0.5374
2002 5 0.5384
2002 6 0.5808
2002 7 0.5938
2002 8 0.5147
2002 9 0.5305
2002 10 0.4554
2002 11 0.5699
2002 12 0.4091
2003 1 0.6418
2003 2 0.5471
2003 3 0.5242
2003 4 0.4961
2003 5 0.5659
2003 6 0.5251
2003 7 0.5435
2003 8 0.5919
2003 9 0.6057
2003 10 0.7050
2003 11 0.5378
2003 12 0.6973
2004 1 0.5502
2004 2 0.6723
2004 3 0.6453
2004 4 0.5604
2004 5 0.4330
2004 6 0.4697
2004 7 0.4550
2004 8 0.4560
2004 9 0.4919
2004 10 0.5632
2004 11 0.7237
2004 12 0.4780
2005 1 0.5648
2005 2 0.4458
2005 3 0.6516
2005 4 0.6710
2005 5 0.6237
2005 6 0.6594
2005 7 0.6427
2005 8 0.5836
2005 9 0.6588
2005 10 0.6478
2005 11 0.6816
2005 12 0.5537
2006 1 0.4031
2006 2 0.5397
2006 3 0.5188
2006 4 0.4572
2006 5 0.4804
2006 6 0.6127
2006 7 0.5840
2006 8 0.5698
2006 9 0.6002
2006 10 0.6390
2006 11 0.5942
2006 12 0.7216
2007 1 0.8141
2007 2 0.5878
2007 3 0.5995
2007 4 0.6723
2007 5 0.5093
2007 6 0.4745
2007 7 0.4739
2007 8 0.4819
2007 9 0.5409
2007 10 0.5109
2007 11 0.4719
2007 12 0.4292
2008 1 0.2188
2008 2 0.3470
2008 3 0.7072
2008 4 0.4313
2008 5 0.4339
2008 6 0.4830
2008 7 0.5096
2008 8 0.4857
2008 9 0.4586
2008 10 0.6077
2008 11 0.6009
2008 12 0.4798
2009 1 0.4966
2009 2 0.4836
2009 3 0.5071
2009 4 0.5968
2009 5 0.5262
2009 6 0.6012
2009 7 0.5647
2009 8 0.6227
2009 9 0.6208
2009 10 0.5627
2009 11 0.5844
2009 12 0.4948
2010 1 0.6041
2010 2 0.6268
2010 3 0.7714
2010 4 0.7436
2010 5 0.6764
2010 6 0.6679
2010 7 0.6648
2010 8 -999.0000
2010 9 -999.0000
2010 10 -999.0000
2010 11 -999.0000
2010 12 -999.0000
Wow says:
"Here would work:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
See if you can see the ciphers here.
Posted by: Wow | August 15, 2010 7:59 AM"
Poor "Wow"... He cannot distinguish between a graph and a database. Hahaha! :D
And jackerman doesn't know the concept of AMPLITUDE.
Read scientific books.
Dave R beat me to the observation that "Dan Kent" is a Nahle sock puppet. And a clumsy one at that - when English is not one's first language, it is very difficult to disguise language idiosyncracies.
Nahle failed in this.
He also failed to understand what 'standard temperature' is. [At #450](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2709…) and [at #493](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2722…) he uses 290 K. He also does this at [#505](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2727…) in his "Dan Kent" guise.
The thing is, standard temperature is defined by IUPAC as being 0 C (= 273.15 K), and by NIST as 20 C (= 293.15 K). Neither value is Nahle's/Dan Kent's 17 C/290 K version - and this guy thinks that he is a physicist!!
As a side note, at [#512](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2727…) Nahle hilariously referred to himself in the third person, as [jakerman saw too](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2727…), obviously thinking that he was writing as "Dan Kent", or simply habitually signing his real name when he intended to use "Dan Kent".
It's a sad thing indeed when a self-styled physicist, who is in reality nothing of the sort, has to resort to multiple personalities in order to convince an audience that there is wide agreement with his nonsense.
How humiliating for the silly man.
And poor ole Nasif doesn't know the concept of imparting information.
Thousands of words saying nothing so far.
Posted by: Lotharsson | August 15, 2010 5:31 AM
"Nasif, your most egregious error is not your arithmetic. It's that you make claims about changes to global climate warming or cooling based purely on the difference (or "amplitude" if you like) between two sample points rather than calculating a trend using enough data points to minimise the effects of the well-known noise in the measurements. I'm pretty certain you are incapable of understanding why this is a terrible error, but I would love to be surprised."
The first argument was that I had problems with my arithmetic. Now it is because I calculated amplitude of change of temperature.
My methodology is in print on any book of physics. It is not any cherrypicking.
For calculating amplitude of change, you must take the maximum negative magnitude of change and substract it from the maximum positive magnitude of change. It doesn't matter when it was given:
Wilson, Jerry D. College Physics-2nd Edition; Prentice Hall Inc. 1994. Page 523.
"542
And poor ole Nasif doesn't know the concept of imparting information.
Thousands of words saying nothing so far.
Posted by: chek | August 15, 2010 12:01 PM"
Nasif says...
Yes, chek... It happens when readers like you know nothing about science.
Yes, Dan Kent has the same IP address as Nasif Nahle. Kent/Nahle is banned.
Nasif Nahle, post 462:
>Those figures were taken from the UAH database
You're a liar, Nasif Nahle.
Nasif Nahle, post 472:
>those figures referred to Max and Min fluctuations of temperature by HadCRU and NOAA
You're a liar, Nasif Nahle.
Nasif Nahle, post 528:
>it was taken from NOAA old database.
You're a liar, Nasif Nahle.
"He cannot distinguish between a graph and a database.
Posted by: Nasif Nahle"
Hmm. In what way is there evidence I don't know the difference, Nasif?
You haven't given any database values that give your numbers. Yet that graph shows the 0.7C warming that check et al are talking about.
Seems the kid can't understand pictures either.
It is a shame that Nasif has been banned, because I've waited over 2 years for him to explain:-
1. Exactly how he obtained his figures (no doubt we can all find many, many ways of mangling the data from just about any temperature series to produce his "amplitudes", but I want to know how he did it). It appears that he has no idea of the meaning of the data he used.
2. Why warming and cooling are both negative, i.e., cooling is cooling but warming is cooling too!
3. Why it makes any sense whatsoever to produce one "amplitude" for 1860-present, and another for Jan 2007-May 2008.
He's also incompetent in attributing comments to the right commenters in this thread.
Tim Lambert.
Might I suggest that Nahle be given 48 hours in which to address the criticisms directed at him, and to make a comprehensive case?
If, after this time, he has not made any substantive postings, we can assume that he concedes his incompetence and then we can put his whole nonsensical garbage to bed.
It **was** mildly amusing that the sock puppet refuted the argument of the puppeteer that animated it, a fact of which the puppeteer remained blithely oblivious...
...while he continued to tell everyone else they "don't understand science".
Bernard J, he's has plenty of time to do that, so I doubt that more time will help. But if he makes a post along those lines, I'll allow it through.
552 Tim,
And not just here. He had about a year at JREF, starting in 2008. He's added nothing to that, even after a further year. In fact, it's amazing that anyone could learn so little in so much time.
TS @549, Nasif was simply lying. He showed that by claiming the figures where from [UAH](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2709…), then HadCrut and NOAA, and changing dates from [1860-2007](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2707…), to [1893-1998](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php#comment-2727…). And finally changing a claim of cooling of 1.524 K to his dramatic reversal of using the figures to show warming of 1.41 K.
I don't think he could possibly roast himself any further.
Yep Jakerman is right and Dave R showed it very succinctly @547. Nahle lied about his numbers and had no case. Since he had no case, no-one was agreeing with him and so he made possibly the worst sock puppet in all of history.
This thread should just be left as a depressing relic of Nahle's incompetence and arrogance.