## How A Global Temperature Average Works

Imbeciles.

So, to get an average value from a set, one must divide the sum of the values of the set by the number of parts in the set.  That is to say we have a set which have the values of 2, 4, 6, 3, and 5.  Let’s call this our global warming average.  The sum of the set is 20, so, we divide it by 5.  So, the average is 4.  This is the average for this set.

Let’s say the values of this set didn’t change very much for several years.

Then, let’s say, for some reason or another, we no longer know the value of one of the parts of the set.  Now, the set is 2, 4, 3, and 5.  We don’t know what the part which used to be 6 is, today.  It’s probably 8, so, we’ll just call it 8 and pronounce this as fact.  So, it’s 2,4,8,3, and 5.  So, the new sum is now 22 and the average is 4.5.  Because, well, it was probably 8.

Let’s also say, we knew what the values were of 2, 4, 6, and 3, but not 5 for very long.  For the one that was 5, we don’t really have a very long history.  But, we’re pretty sure it was 3 for many years prior to us knowing what it was.  So, we believe what was 2, 4, 6, 3, and 5 was 2, 4, 6, 3, and 3 for a time before we really knew.  So, the sum was 18, or an average of 3.5.

Using a 4th order polynomial, it looks like this on a graph.

A ten year mean of GISS’s temperature data looks like this.

And, people believe this crap to be true.  You can’t make this stuff up.  6th graders should know better than that.  But, our really science people, and really mathy pretend skeptics don’t.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

### 21 Responses to How A Global Temperature Average Works

1. Thank you

2. Latitude says:

but don’t you know…..when a computer does it…it’s right

3. Latitude says:

Goddard’s all over the news this morning….

He owes those guys big time…….making a big deal out of how wrong he was…..and then having to eat it

Made it a thousand times bigger deal…….

• philjourdan says:

Righteous indignation! I hope he does.

4. kim2ooo says:

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

5. kim2ooo says:
• squid2112 says:

Bwahhahahaha… Great find Kim! .. thanks for that … can hardly quit chuckling … 🙂

• kim2ooo says:

This will be interesting……………….. 🙂

You are very welcome.

• cdquarles says:

Oh nice and Judicial Watch is on the case, again.

6. kim2ooo says:
7. Tom In Indy says:

In an earlier post, someone asked “What happens next?”

My fear is that this “error” in the US, and perhaps global, temperature record will be pushed to the public, then a magical correction will show the “errors” don’t make that much difference. The keepers of the thermometer will claim that after making all corrections to the data, the earth is actually warming at a faster rate than previously thought. In one fell swoop, they will have silenced the skeptics.

The thrust of the skeptic argument should be that regardless of the USHCN tampering, satellite data disproves climate scientists’ claim that a positive water vapor feedback causes catastrophic warming. Little to no evidence exists for CAGW in any data set that is free from tampering by an agency of the federal government.

• kim2ooo says:

This boil needs lancing…once and for all.

8. Bruce of Newcastle says:

Give yourself a pat on the back James.

Read the very first line of this post.

• DirkH says:

Judith a fan?

• suyts says:

LOL, I never ceased to be surprised about who has read my little blog.

• suyts says:

Yeh, that was nice. I’m waiting on her for a more informed response, though.

9. suyts, by collecting as ”data” only the hottest minute in 24h and ignoring all the other 1439 minutes is same as building a car with one bolt and ignoring all the other 1439 parts.

They get data for 365 minutes in the year, and ”ignore” how many minutes in that year

2] TV box said that: where I’m, tomorrow will be 2C ”warmer” than today – do you think that: ALL the other 1439 minutes, starting from midnight will be warmer by 2C than today’s temp?!?!

Skeptics ”proving” that the data was adulterated / manipulated; is same as proving that Rudolf was naughty – to prove that Santa is for real…