Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I showed that we can compare how much heat there is based on maximum and minimum.

We know that the average for the day must always be between the maximum and minimum. You do agree with that, don't you?

So, if we were to take readings every hour and compare that average to the average for the max/min we would find that there is some relationship that could be shown to exist statistically. We would be able to show that the average of readings every hour has a 95% probability to be within a certain range compared to the average of max/min.

This is a big fat assumption. Perhaps you can show experimental evidence where this has been proven ? The rest of your argument can be stopped at this point.

So, let's take readings for 100 days and compare the 2 averages. Now, if we take those 100 readings we can find a formula where 1/2 of the averages by hour are less than the min/max average and 1/2 are more. Surely you would agree with that.

This is what you want to be the day's average - DA

DA = min + max + 23 other readings between min and max (or how many other readings you want to insist)

DAX= (DA1+DA2+DA3...+DAn)/n
would give us the average for n number of days DAX


MMA is the average using only min/max
MMA= (min+max)/2


MMAX = (MMA1+MMA2+MMA3...+MMAn)/n
would again give us the average for n number of days - MMAX

Do you agree that we could write
MMAX + Z = DAX
where Z is some unknown number but could be calculated?

@parados,
Quote:

It's hardly an assumption because you have already agreed that it is true.

Are you lying or is this only a memory error ?
Quote:

We know for a fact that there is 100% probability that the average of temperatures taken every hour must be between the max and min. That means there has to be a smaller range between the max/min where the probability would be 95% and a smaller range where it would be 90%, etc.

Incorrect. Did you mean a bigger range where it is 90% ???

Do you agree that we could write
MMAX + Z = DAX
where Z is some unknown number but could be calculated?

Have a good night Ionus.

I'm glad I caught your post before you deleted it.

Of course you are glad. That is the sort of person you are...

It does point out your lack of understanding of statistics.

So, we can agree that as the range of numbers gets smaller, the probability of rolling a number in that range is smaller.

If we do the experiment, do you agree we could calculate Z?

DA = min + max + 23 other readings between min and max (or how many other readings you want to insist)

DAX= (DA1+DA2+DA3...+DAn)/n
would give us the average for n number of days DAX


MMA is the average using only min/max
MMA= (min+max)/2


MMAX = (MMA1+MMA2+MMA3...+MMAn)/n
would again give us the average for n number of days - MMAX

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
360
Geologist C. Robert Shoup authored a summer 2007 scientific study for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in which he debunked global warming fears. "The hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming does not yet meet the basic scientific standards of proof needed to be accepted as a viable hypothesis, much less as accepted fact," Shoup wrote in the study titled "Science Under Attack." Shoup concluded, "A comprehensive review of the climate data suggests that many global warming advocates do not present data that is contradictory to their beliefs. In addition, the constant call to end debate and silence scientists who challenge the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming is a violation of scientific protocol and has the affect of suppressing healthy scientific debate."

361
Horticulturalist Alan Titchmarch, a prominent naturalist who hosts the popular "The Nature of Britain" program on the BBC, received the Royal Horticultural Society’s highest award " the Victoria Medal of Honor " for outstanding services to horticulture. Titchmarch also joined the climate skeptics in 2007. "Our climate has always changed," Titchmarch said according to an October 6, 2007 article in the UK Telegraph. "I wish we could grow up about it," he explained, "I'm sure we are contributing to global warming, and we must do all we can to reduce that, but our climate has always changed. The Romans had vineyards in Yorkshire. We're all on this bandwagon of ‘Ban the 4x4 in Fulham'. Why didn't we have global warming during the Industrial Revolution? In those days you couldn't have seen across the street for all the carbon emissions and the crap coming out of the chimneys," he said. Titchmarch also rejected fears of warming induced species loss. "We'll lose some, we'll gain others. Wildlife is remarkably tenacious. Nature always copes," he said. (LINK)