LOL - I am well aware of the arithmetic involved, I was more wondering if Dennis would bite!
LOL - I am well aware of the arithmetic involved, I was more wondering if Dennis would bite!
I have to admit that I missed that too (does that make it a lie?) but Tim's post was a reply to your "apology". It just proves the point that you just wanted another go at Denis.
Archie
I am just a simple soul. Some things go right over my head.
Don't worry, there are times when Dennis will make some very silly statements and then won't accept he may have been wrong. As a result he loses respect and a number here are quite rude to him as a result.
However I am talking about measurements done as far back as 1880. They could not get a "proper average" back then, only the 9am temperature and the maximum and minimum temperatures. I have discovered that the 9am temperatures have not risen over a long period while the "mean max/min" temperatures appear to have risen. Possibly if 9am temperatures are analysed around the world then "Global Warming" will vanish. I will repeat that a "proper average" cannot now be obtained for data 50 or more years ago.
You are clearly a plantpot.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Roger Chapman saying something like:
Anyway, the naked min and max are quite incomplete without knowing how long for and how much heat has been absorbed and shed by the land/sea/air in a locality. It makes a huge difference, I know from observation - so you're both wrong.
Any two data points selected at random and averaged are likely to give an average closer to the true mean than a single data point but the maximum and minimum temperatures are far more significant than two random points.
For instance the information from my weather station for the last few days is:
Date /true mean/high/ low /average/ 9am /
23rd 0.1 2.1 -2.1 0.0 -0.4 24th 2.1 4.2 0.3 2.25 0.8 25th 4.1 5.2 2.7 3.95 3.3 26th 2.6 4.1 0.9 2.5 2.7Average 2.225 2.175 1.600
As can be seen there is much less variability in the max/min average than the 9am figure and the max/min average is also a close approximation to the true mean.
As of 7.45am today temperature here has been on a downward trend since mid afternoon on the 25th from a high of 5.2C to -0.3C with deviations from a straight line not exceeding 0.5C.
What you mean is that they disagree, not that I am wrong. They resort to being rude to try and cover up their mistake. You have done the same in the past. Its the same with this average, you just haven't read and understood what I said. Its my fault for overestimating the level of intelligence of some here.
In message , "dennis@home" writes
Number nine, number nine ...
Nein, Nein, Nein. Do not argue with Dennis
Adam
snip
Well you're the one who averaged -14 and 5 and came up with -9.
You certainly do.
Sadly we do understand much of what you say but it is mostly, to say the least, contentious.
It is certainly your fault for over estimating the level of your own intelligence. On usenet you are what you post and you post a lot of absolute garbage and then make a host of enemies but aggressively denigrating anyone who dares to contradict you.
You are not whiter that white either Roger. e.g. You became quite abusive in the "central heating upgrade" thread when NT didn't agree with you.
Well yes but you are so thick that you don't understand sarcasm and still haven't read what I said. I will explain it to you very slowly.. I said "and you think its -8" i.e. you are wrong just as when you say its the average daily temp. You didn't even cotton on after I said it must be a 9 then.
I am never the first to call anyone names here.
I am never the first to denigrate anyone, the same as in this thread. It was you that started it in the original thread too in case you have forgotten. If you want to hurl insults don't expect me to ignore them indefinitely.
Lost me Geoff old chap. Revolution 9 by The Beatles?
Was you sarcasm intended?
Quite right. I am not perfect (far from it) but that doesn't stop me seeing the flaws in others. One of my weaknesses is that I am far to inclined to return abuse like with like and even ratchet it up a notch or two when faced with endless variations on a fallacious theme.
I have also stepped over the mark on occasion. However if Dennis was as intelligent as he makes out, he would understand why his replies are as infuriating as a 5 year old making out you're thick.
You don't appear to understand the meaning of the word 'sarcasm' and your claim that I still haven't read what you said is just another of your pointless lies. You may well have intended to imply that I still hadn't understood what you said but that would still have been a lie.
Like much of the rubbish you write your original statement was ambiguous which is why I didn't immediately point out that it was plain as a pikestaff that the average of the figures you gave was -4.5.
What I didn't cotton on to immediately was that at that time you actually believed the average was -9 and it is no good trying to play that particular card now. As I pointed out in the other thread some time ago you lost the opportunity when you came up with the typo excuse.
Do you really expect our readers to believe that in order to set a trap for me you voluntarily portrayed yourself as an innumerate idiot?
You don't think impugning anyone's integrity, honesty or ability is name calling then? Well there is a subtle difference I suppose but you are anything but subtle.
You have never been backward at coming forward Dennis but if you want to avoid the insults stop posting fallacious garbage.
That's your problem again, everything I posted about the data was and still is true and you are still wrong and no amount of your insults is going to change it. I suggest you stop posting your garbage and then you wont get me posting saying its garbage and you wont have to resort to insults in an attempt to backup your garbage.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.