Is this statement an oxymoron?

Last year "ranked as the warmest year on record, together with 2005 and 1998,"

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8199849

Seems like it to me, especially when you also consider this statement:

"That exceeded 2005 levels by 0.01 C (0.02 F) and was 0.02 C (0.05 F) above the 1998 mark, but within a margin of error that made the difference between the three years statistically insignificant", according to the WMO.

2011-01-20T21:11:43Z

rebeccajk42 - I can see why you would say that. Makes sense. This leads me to....

pegminer - I agree, I think it could have worded a little better. To me, it seems like the article is trying to imply 2010 as being the warmest which helps push this effect even more.

2011-01-20T21:39:15Z

EDIT: I also doesn't think it helps when there is statements from the WMO in the article such as:

"The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998."

That to me implies it's been warmer when 1998 ended which somewhat contradicts the first statement I provided in this question.....doesn't it? Because 1998 is supposed to tie with 2005 and 2010. Perhaps it is again a poor choice of words?

2011-01-21T20:05:30Z

2B or not 2B - Baccheus' example was worded a little wrong. Basically, what he was trying to say with that statement was how you could roll a dice 10,000 times and get the number 1 on it 4000 times (as an example).

2011-01-21T20:24:26Z

Baccheus - While your answer was more detailed than the others, thanks for the condescending tone also I guess? I have done a little statistics here and there in high school. While it wasn't a whole lot, there was enough to understand the basics at least. My point was really the wording of that statement and tone of the article which to me tried to imply 2010 as being the 'warmest year on record'. It's not the only one to do it either.

Like mentioned previously, I also don't think that the statements of 1998 and "The 10 warmest years" which happened since then is helpful. If anything, it seems contradictory to me when you compare it to the first sentence I provided at the start of this question....

2011-01-21T20:32:06Z

I also wanted to add about what you had said about how some sources will say it's the warmest whilst some will call it a tie - it just seems ripe for abuse/headlines. Even you say that it is probably the best to call it a tie. I dunno, maybe I just feel this way because I'd rather 'absolutes' that probability...

2011-01-21T20:33:06Z

*than

Wasn't supposed to be 'that' at the end of that paragraph. Oops!

Baccheus2011-01-20T22:14:05Z

Favorite Answer

What it means is that the actual calculations is that it was the warmest year, but there is a reasonable chance that there is enough statistical fluke in the measurements that it might not have really been the warmest. The chance that 2010 was warmer than than either other year is better than 50% but less than 95%. There is a better than 5% chance that either year was actually warmer.

I wish basic statistics was taught to all high school students. This is not rocket science but it is a bit hard to understand if you have not been introduced to the subject.

If you roll a die 10 times, and it comes 1 in 4 rolls you start to wonder if the die is unbalanced. If you roll it 100 times and it comes up 1 40 of those you really believe it must be unbalanced -- but you still can't be sure. You understand that just maybe it randomly came up 1 many extra times. If you roll a die 10,000 times and it comes up 1 4,000 times you are very sure (but less than 100% sure) the die is unbalanced.

This finding is like rolling 100 times. The odds are that 2010 was the warmest but we can't be entirely sure: there is at last a 1/20 chance that it was not. So, some sources will say it is the warmest, and some will call it a tie. Given the small but real chance it was not, it is best to say it was a tie.

22

Anonymous2011-01-21T10:40:44Z

The Years of the depression were the warmest . The Warmers leave those facts out.
The graphs would trend lower . That would affect their agenda

00

rebeccajk422011-01-20T20:45:34Z

It means the 3 years tie for being the warmest.

02

Anonymous2011-01-20T20:58:16Z

it makes no sense at all unless you read it for its GW agenda

""Ten warmest years on record: all of them since 1998 ""


What a load of craop they go back 12 years then pick the three warmest
makes as much sense as "You have to sign the bill so you can know whats in it"

God save us from the a -holes

32

Hector2011-01-20T20:56:45Z

PARADOX :D
i think it does due to the fact that the idea just contradicts each other ...

01
Show more answers (1)

Trending Questions

Do you worry about global chaos due to global warming and increased human population almost daily?17 answersCould a vehicle self-power itself using biomethane extracted from the air ?7 answersNorthern Hemisphere snow mass 500 GIGATONS above average! What happened to alarmist predictions saying snow will be a thing of the past?16 answersWill liberal academics and public school teachers give equal time to the movie Climate Hustle 2 in their classrooms?5 answersHow much can you afford or willing to pay to fight climate change.?18 answers