<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19088"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>Suppose you were an airline looking to set fares
on the basis of costs, including fuel.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>One element of fuel cost is the weight of
the passengers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>Suppose for a month there were 1966
passengers over the average weight and 4376 passengers under the average
weight. Should you then contemplate lowering fares?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>Suppose that the average over the average
weight passenger was 30 pounds per passenger while the average under the
average weight per passenger was 1 pound per passenger.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>Hence, the total weight change would be 1966 x 30
- 4276 x 1 = 58980 - 4276 = 54704 more than the average.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>Hence, even though there were less over the
average weight passengers, there accumulated mass was a lot more than the
accumulated mass of the under the average weight passengers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>Just looking a raw under the average
counts of anything does not reveal any conclusions beyond those
counts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>Also, if for only one month out of
twelve the under the average weight passengers outnumbered the over the
average weight passengers, drawing conclusions from such a single month
count would likely lead to an error.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>I have not analyzed the numbers you have referred
to in context, but unless you can show that no errors like as those shown above
occurred, your question is not due serious consideration.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>Perhaps you might gain some insight from both the
following easy to understand books:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>How to Lie with Statistics</FONT></EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>Proofiness</FONT></EM></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>w.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">Paul Rumelhart</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:09 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A
title="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] Climate science temperature records and the
media</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I ran into this story in the Seattle Times that came out
yesterday:<BR><BR><A
title="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015737378_heatrecords27.html CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015737378_heatrecords27.html">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015737378_heatrecords27.html</A><BR><BR>It
basically talks about the fact that there were 1,966 high temperature
<BR>records broken or tied this month (presumably in the US, though they
<BR>don't say), and compares that to the odd fact that there were 4,376
<BR>minimum temperature records broken in the same period of time (July 1
<BR>through July 23). So, instead of contemplating why the focus has been
<BR>on the extreme heat when there are twice as many extreme cold records
<BR>being broken the article goes on to explain how high temperature records
<BR>being broken is an expected part of climate change and how it's tied
<BR>into greenhouse gases and how we can expect more and more of that as the
<BR>years go by. It then throws in a comment that some natural gas
<BR>commodity trading advisor is unsure how extensive any cooling might
be.<BR><BR>So why is the breaking of 4,376 minimum temperature records in July a
<BR>non-issue, but the breaking of 1,966 maximum temperature records in the
<BR>same period is fodder for the standard AGW grist mill? Aren't both
<BR>anomalies likely equally important?<BR><BR>If maximum and minimum
temperature records being broken are right in <BR>line with anthropogenic global
warming or climate change or whatever, <BR>then what kind of weather would
disprove
it?<BR><BR>Paul<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR></BODY></HTML>