Quote:
Originally posted by JonathanLowe:
Finally a meaningful response? I've given you meaningful responses all the time. Did you read my response (I note that you have not replied):

"Well if you want to throw the entire method of statistical research out the door and conclude what you want to make of the results to suit your need then go ahead. But the results are insignificant. There is no evidence to prove an increase or decrease in temperature. But feel free to spend gozillions of dollars on something that hasn?t been proven let alone proven of mans influence.

But if you want to go against the method of science, then here are the results for the times done on the webpage so far:

9am: -0.4 +/- 0.08 (wow a significant decrease!)
3pm: -0.1 +/- 0.1
9pm: 0.46 +/- 0.75
3am: -0.1 +/- 0.2

Hardly conclusive, and in fact, let me remind you again: "There is no evidence to prove an increase or decrease in temperature. Insignificant evidence."
What is inconclusive is your analysis. The error bars you first presented were way higher, b.t.w. So, I'm assuming that that you got them wrong:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=36333052&postID=116250634123923712

As long as the measured temperature increase of 0.6? C +/- 0.2 ?C per century falls within your confidence interval, your results are worthless. You could only have detected a statistically significant temperature increase with your limited amount of data if Australia had warmed up at five times the rate of the rest of the world.