The uncertainty on the annual global mean temperature anomalies is far smaller than the decadal changes described in the paper. You’re just going to have to deal with that, and don’t come back bleating any more, because all of your tiresome non-questions have been dealt with.

This is rather pathetic of you. Even the authors admit that this error estimation based on the global mean temps isn’t all the error in their analysis: “Since the GCM and real-world temperature variabilities are not identical and since THERE ARE OTHER SOURCES OF ERROR, the bars only represent a nominal measure of the EXPECTED error in the temperature change.” (caps are my emphasis)

So they are trying to get around measuring their model’s error directly. My argument is that this what they call an error estimate, is grossly underestimating their actual error, or at the very least is a poor “estimate” of their error and that they could have easily enough measured determined their error directly.

“The study sought to find out what the global average temperature was, based on direct measurements at discrete locations, and estimated the uncertainty in the values found.”

No, the uncertainty only came from those discrete locations, not the extrapolated temps from their analysis using a regression on top of a regression and creating a weighting factor. They never gave you the error in that part of the analysis.

This is about the closest they come: “Plate 4 suggests that the model’s variability of annual mean temperature is realistic to first order. The standard deviation of annual mean temperature is typically 0.25ø-0.5øC at low latitudes, increasing to about 1øC in polar latitudes. At mid-latitudes the variability is greater in midcontinents than in coastal regions.”

But that’s just the year to year variation not a measure of their whole model (which remember includes more then just year to year measurements but regressions and creating that weighting factor), nor a measure of the confidence in their result. But look at that for a second. .25-.5 degrees C yearly, in just a single standard deviation, and their trends were around .2-.3 degrees C but over a decade. This is why the “error bars” in figure 6 are of the GCM and not their own error. Their own error would have made that trend line look flat over the entire period even just using the yearly SD, think if they actually then added in the error that comes from the regressions of this data and the extrapolation using the weighting factor. This makes their whole paper fall in the “statistically insignificant” category.

So, you really have completely misunderstood their analysis. Or you’re just trolling. Enough, anyway. If you can’t get this, you’ve got no hope.

They did not already know the global average temperature. The global average temperature does not have an intrinsic standard deviation, any more than the height of a mountain does. The study sought to find out what the global average temperature was, based on direct measurements at discrete locations, and estimated the uncertainty in the values found.

Would someone else have an idea of why Wally is having such problems with the ultra-basics?

They most certainly are not. One set of error comes from direct measurements, the other should come from their measurements and their regressions and the creation of their model. If they already knew the global average and the global standard dev., why did they even bother to do this study?

Now, I’ve explained why as best I can. I’m sorry you do not have the capability to understand that, or that I don’t have the ability to explain it to you. Though I’m somewhat unsure it is possible for you to understand this.

They are exactly the same thing. Your inability to understand this is abject.

You read and act exactly like “hunter” and conveniently took up this conversation when he left… now there’s a correlation… wonder what it means…

My god, you really don’t understand that when you measure something, you have to report the error of what you measure, not of the error of something sort-kinda the same, do you?

“They quote values, and uncertainties.”

Sure, they quoted uncertainties, but not the uncertainty in their model, just global mean temps. The two are different.

“You are embarrassing yourself to claim that uncertainty in the analysis and uncertainty in the value resulting from the analysis are somehow intrinsically different.”

Boy, that’s a gross misunderstanding and/or representation of what I said and what they did. They didn’t actually report the error “in the value resulting from the analysis” the pulled that error from a the global mean as measured by individual station, not from their extrapolation.

They did this because either they didn’t know how to measure error in their analysis, or they new the error in their analysis would be unacceptably large, so they went with reporting the error of something that sounded similar to what they wanted and was easier to calculate and even already known. Which should tip you off. How do you know the error of something before you have done the analysis?

“They did. You’ve been told what they said. ”

They certainly never did. What was the exact level of confidence they had that those trends were different from zero?

“Apparently, though, you’ve poked your eyes out and sewn your ears shut in a fit of anti-scientific reactionary pique.”

Nice that you insult people, now if you could only understand statistics….

“Its pretty simple to figure out the error in a trendline and 95% CI. Why didn’t they do that?”

They did. You’ve been told what they said. Apparently, though, you’ve poked your eyes out and sewn your ears shut in a fit of anti-scientific reactionary pique.

Here’s just a little something from wiki: “It is thought that the plate tectonics of the area are adding to the height and moving the summit (of Mt. Everst) northeastwards. Two accounts suggest the rates of change are 4 mm (0.16 in) per year (upwards) and 3 to 6 mm (0.12 to 0.24 in) per year (northeastwards),[20][23] but another account mentions more lateral movement (27 mm/1.1 in),[24] and even shrinkage has been suggested.[25]”

We can measure these things, but only to certain degree of confidence. Thus, two groups tried to measure it and came up with very different results. Its entirely possible both measurements above are right, they are just at two opposite ends of the error (or not, the may be much larger then ~30mm/year). Further evidence you don’t actually think things through and your knowledge is a bit lacking.