I don’t like apologising any more than the next man but I do accept that
it needs to be done if circumstances warrant it even when the other
party is as unpleasant as Dennis frequently is but I am not going to be
gracious about it. This apology is for my benefit, not his.

The circumstances are that over on the DIY Data thread I branded Dennis
a liar because he claimed that the error in a calculation was down to a
simple typo, he had failed to press the right key for a 9.

The calculation in question was the simple average of 5C and -14C which
he originally quoted as -8. I am afraid I didn’t accept that he
genuinely believed that the average of 5 and -14 was actually -9 even
after his original calculation had been called into question. I thought
he was just generating his usual smokescreen when faced with an
embarrassing situation.

However after a good nights sleep I have come to the conclusion that he
was being totally honest in putting forward the typo as the error.

So there you have it. I am sorry Dennis that I doubted your probity in
this particular circumstance.

But as to your monumental ineptitude in failing to average a positive
and negative integer correctly and then not spotting such an obvious
mistake when the calculation was called into question, that is something
you will have to live with as you are never *ever* going to be able to
live that down.

love, peace, mutual respect and tolerance blossom like a rare orchid,
or perhaps like a plague of daffodils?
[g]


Roger Chapman wrote:
I don’t like apologising any more than the next man but I do accept that
it needs to be done if circumstances warrant it even when the other
party is as unpleasant as Dennis frequently is but I am not going to be
gracious about it. This apology is for my benefit, not his.

The circumstances are that over on the DIY Data thread I branded Dennis
a liar because he claimed that the error in a calculation was down to a
simple typo, he had failed to press the right key for a 9.

The calculation in question was the simple average of 5C and -14C which
he originally quoted as -8. I am afraid I didn’t accept that he
genuinely believed that the average of 5 and -14 was actually -9 even
after his original calculation had been called into question. I thought
he was just generating his usual smokescreen when faced with an
embarrassing situation.

However after a good nights sleep I have come to the conclusion that he
was being totally honest in putting forward the typo as the error.

So there you have it. I am sorry Dennis that I doubted your probity in
this particular circumstance.

But as to your monumental ineptitude in failing to average a positive
and negative integer correctly and then not spotting such an obvious
mistake when the calculation was called into question, that is something
you will have to live with as you are never *ever* going to be able to
live that down.

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:

So there you have it. I am sorry Dennis that I doubted your probity in
this particular circumstance.

But as to your monumental ineptitude in failing to average a positive
and negative integer correctly and then not spotting such an obvious
mistake when the calculation was called into question, that is something
you will have to live with as you are never *ever* going to be able to
live that down.

FFS, if you're going to so ungracious about it, why bother.
Call him a **** and be done with it.

On 26/02/2010 10:54, Roger Chapman wrote:
I don’t like apologising any more than the next man but I do accept that
it needs to be done if circumstances warrant it even when the other
party is as unpleasant as Dennis frequently is but I am not going to be
gracious about it. This apology is for my benefit, not his.

The circumstances are that over on the DIY Data thread I branded Dennis
a liar because he claimed that the error in a calculation was down to a
simple typo, he had failed to press the right key for a 9.

The calculation in question was the simple average of 5C and -14C which
he originally quoted as -8. I am afraid I didn’t accept that he
genuinely believed that the average of 5 and -14 was actually -9 even
after his original calculation had been called into question. I thought
he was just generating his usual smokescreen when faced with an
embarrassing situation.

I didn't see this thread (or didn't bother with it). Presumably the
answer of -4.5 appeared somewhere.

--
Tim

"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament"

Bill of Rights 1689

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

I didn't see this thread (or didn't bother with it). Presumably the answer
of -4.5 appeared somewhere.

Not yet it hasn't.
It was a bit of sarcasm that went straight over his head. ;-)
Just shows that it doesn't work with some.
He seriously thinks I got it wrong twice even though you only add two
numbers and divide by two.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

I didn't see this thread (or didn't bother with it). Presumably the
answer of -4.5 appeared somewhere.

Not yet it hasn't.
It was a bit of sarcasm that went straight over his head. ;-)
Just shows that it doesn't work with some.
He seriously thinks I got it wrong twice even though you only add two
numbers and divide by two.

You mean 5 + 14 = 19

Dived by 2 = 9.5

Add the minus sign for good measure and round up, or should that be down for
the shear hell of it?

Where am I going wrong Dennis?

On 26/02/2010 14:17, Roger Chapman wrote:

[snip]

You can huff and you can puff all you like but anyone who reads the
thread in full, or even the little extract above, will eventually
conclude, like me that you managed to cock up a simple calculation. You
keep on telling me I don't get it but really the only thing I didn't get
at first was your lack of mathematical ability.

You don't need mathematical ability to average two numbers, even if one
of them is negative. You need arithmetical ability.

This must be part of the "let's pretend everything is easy" approach to
life we've seen over the last few years, so that they pretend that they
are teaching children mathematics, when it is in fact arithmetic (sums,
basically).

--
Tim

"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament"

Bill of Rights 1689

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

FFS, if you're going to so ungracious about it, why bother.
Call him a **** and be done with it.

As I said at the top the apology was for my benefit, not his. I managed
to make a mistake and to salve my conscience I need to admit it.

As for calling Dennis a **** why not indeed but that wasn't the object
of the exercise.

You mean 5 + 14 = 19

Dived by 2 = 9.5

Add the minus sign for good measure and round up, or should that be down
for the shear hell of it?

Where am I going wrong Dennis?



The minus signs matter in arithmetic. You can't just leave them out and add
them later where you like.
5+(-14) = -9
-9/2= -4.5


As for the apology to Denis.

"I'm sorry BUT" is hardly an apology. More like an excuse to continue and
argument. Grimly got it spot on.

Archie

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

FFS, if you're going to so ungracious about it, why bother.
Call him a **** and be done with it.

As I said at the top the apology was for my benefit, not his. I managed to
make a mistake and to salve my conscience I need to admit it.

As for calling Dennis a **** why not indeed but that wasn't the object of
the exercise.

If you wanted to apologise to Denis you should have left it at that.
Instead, you went on to call him inept.
It was just an excuse to continue your feud. Consciensce, what conscience?

Archie

Archie wrote:

FFS, if you're going to so ungracious about it, why bother.
Call him a **** and be done with it.

As I said at the top the apology was for my benefit, not his. I
managed to make a mistake and to salve my conscience I need to admit it.

As for calling Dennis a **** why not indeed but that wasn't the object
of the exercise.

If you wanted to apologise to Denis you should have left it at that.
Instead, you went on to call him inept.

I didn't want to apologise to Dennis. I thought it necessary to apologise.

It was just an excuse to continue your feud. Consciensce, what conscience?

There are always problems with wanting to be truthful. On the one hand I
managed to call Dennis a liar on an occasion when he probably wasn't
lying. That needed addressing. On the other hand Dennis is certainly
inept and to say otherwise would be untruthful.

Tim Streater wrote:

[snip]

You can huff and you can puff all you like but anyone who reads the
thread in full, or even the little extract above, will eventually
conclude, like me that you managed to cock up a simple calculation. You
keep on telling me I don't get it but really the only thing I didn't get
at first was your lack of mathematical ability.

You don't need mathematical ability to average two numbers, even if one
of them is negative. You need arithmetical ability.

That really is a matter of semantics. For me arithmetic will always be a
branch of maths.

This must be part of the "let's pretend everything is easy" approach to
life we've seen over the last few years, so that they pretend that they
are teaching children mathematics, when it is in fact arithmetic (sums,
basically).

Well you have to start somewhere but my take on that is diametrically
opposed to yours even though I suspect that the underlying concerns may
be much the same. Failing to teach the basics (how to add, subtract,
multiply and divide) without the assistance of calculator or computer
means the children of today are very poorly prepared to advance any
further in mathematics. But never mind, they will get a C+ pass at GCSE
maths and a piece of paper that might even take them as far as a degree
in a non rigorous subject.

On 26/02/2010 17:21, Roger Chapman wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

[snip]

You can huff and you can puff all you like but anyone who reads the
thread in full, or even the little extract above, will eventually
conclude, like me that you managed to cock up a simple calculation. You
keep on telling me I don't get it but really the only thing I didn't get
at first was your lack of mathematical ability.

You don't need mathematical ability to average two numbers, even if
one of them is negative. You need arithmetical ability.

That really is a matter of semantics. For me arithmetic will always be a
branch of maths.

This must be part of the "let's pretend everything is easy" approach
to life we've seen over the last few years, so that they pretend that
they are teaching children mathematics, when it is in fact arithmetic
(sums, basically).

Well you have to start somewhere but my take on that is diametrically
opposed to yours even though I suspect that the underlying concerns may
be much the same. Failing to teach the basics (how to add, subtract,
multiply and divide)

and times tables, don't forget them.

without the assistance of calculator or computer
means the children of today are very poorly prepared to advance any
further in mathematics. But never mind, they will get a C+ pass at GCSE
maths and a piece of paper that might even take them as far as a degree
in a non rigorous subject.

This was basically my point, yes :-)

--
Tim

"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament"

Bill of Rights 1689

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...


You can huff and you can puff all you like but anyone who reads the thread
in full, or even the little extract above, will eventually conclude, like
me that you managed to cock up a simple calculation. You keep on telling
me I don't get it but really the only thing I didn't get at first was your
lack of mathematical ability. My comment further up that thread that you
don't seem comfortable with figures must count as the understatement of
the year so far.

I can tell you what they have already concluded.. you didn't apologise at
all, you used your "apology" as an excuse to start another thread in the
hope you could score some points for your pathetic argument as you can't win
it with logic, science or maths.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Archie wrote:

FFS, if you're going to so ungracious about it, why bother.
Call him a **** and be done with it.

As I said at the top the apology was for my benefit, not his. I managed
to make a mistake and to salve my conscience I need to admit it.

As for calling Dennis a **** why not indeed but that wasn't the object
of the exercise.

If you wanted to apologise to Denis you should have left it at that.
Instead, you went on to call him inept.

I didn't want to apologise to Dennis. I thought it necessary to apologise.

Oh don't be such a prat.
I reject your apology for what it is, feel any better now?

dennis@home wrote:

You can huff and you can puff all you like but anyone who reads the
thread in full, or even the little extract above, will eventually
conclude, like me that you managed to cock up a simple calculation.
You keep on telling me I don't get it but really the only thing I
didn't get at first was your lack of mathematical ability. My comment
further up that thread that you don't seem comfortable with figures
must count as the understatement of the year so far.

I can tell you what they have already concluded.. you didn't apologise
at all, you used your "apology" as an excuse to start another thread in
the hope you could score some points for your pathetic argument as you
can't win it with logic, science or maths.

(huff+puff)^n

((-14+5)/2)=?

Is it: 1. -8, 2. -9 or 3. -4.5?

I must admit I was disappointed that Archie chose to question my ethics
while ignoring your blatant lie but perhaps that is because you are
already considered beyond the pale.

dennis@home wrote:

Archie wrote:

FFS, if you're going to so ungracious about it, why bother.
Call him a **** and be done with it.

As I said at the top the apology was for my benefit, not his. I
managed to make a mistake and to salve my conscience I need to admit
it.

As for calling Dennis a **** why not indeed but that wasn't the
object of the exercise.

If you wanted to apologise to Denis you should have left it at that.
Instead, you went on to call him inept.

I didn't want to apologise to Dennis. I thought it necessary to
apologise.

Oh don't be such a prat.
I reject your apology for what it is, feel any better now?

Your choice but I don't actually care what you do.

Is it: 1. -8, 2. -9 or 3. -4.5?

I must admit I was disappointed that Archie chose to question my
ethics while ignoring your blatant lie but perhaps that is because you
are already considered beyond the pale.

I missed the original thread but went back to read it after your
"Apology". Denis's original post is shown below. I see nothing in
Denis's statement to justify your rant. You are assuming that Denis
meant to give the average of the two datapoints -14 and +5. Maybe he
did, maybe he didn't but his statement below is correct. I don't see any
blatant lie.

So its Jan and you get a clear night at -14C for a couple of hours,
then it clouds over and it goes to 1C and then its cloudy all day at
5C and you think the average is -8 when it obviously isn't. All you
have done is created a faulty data set.

In message , Roger Chapman
writes
I dont like apologising any more than the next man but I do accept
that it needs to be done if circumstances warrant it even when the
other party is as unpleasant as Dennis frequently is but I am not going
to be gracious about it. This apology is for my benefit, not his.

The circumstances are that over on the DIY Data thread I branded Dennis
a liar because he claimed that the error in a calculation was down to a
simple typo, he had failed to press the right key for a 9.

The calculation in question was the simple average of 5C and -14C
which he originally quoted as -8. I am afraid I didnt accept that he
genuinely believed that the average of 5 and -14 was actually -9 even
after his original calculation had been called into question. I thought
he was just generating his usual smokescreen when faced with an
embarrassing situation.

However after a good nights sleep I have come to the conclusion that he
was being totally honest in putting forward the typo as the error.

So there you have it. I am sorry Dennis that I doubted your probity in
this particular circumstance.

But as to your monumental ineptitude in failing to average a positive
and negative integer correctly and then not spotting such an obvious
mistake when the calculation was called into question, that is
something you will have to live with as you are never *ever* going to
be able to live that down.

A "hacksaw" moment

so to speak

--
geoff

In message , Archie
writes

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

FFS, if you're going to so ungracious about it, why bother.
Call him a **** and be done with it.

As I said at the top the apology was for my benefit, not his. I
managed to make a mistake and to salve my conscience I need to admit


As for calling Dennis a **** why not indeed but that wasn't the
object of the exercise.

If you wanted to apologise to Denis you should have left it at that.
Instead, you went on to call him inept.
It was just an excuse to continue your feud. Consciensce, what conscience?

Number nine, number nine ...


--
geoff

On Feb 27, 1:35 am, Tim Streater wrote:
On 26/02/2010 10:54, Roger Chapman wrote:

I don t like apologising any more than the next man but I do accept that
it needs to be done if circumstances warrant it even when the other
party is as unpleasant as Dennis frequently is but I am not going to be
gracious about it. This apology is for my benefit, not his.

The circumstances are that over on the DIY Data thread I branded Dennis
a liar because he claimed that the error in a calculation was down to a
simple typo, he had failed to press the right key for a 9.

The calculation in question was the simple average of 5C and -14C which
he originally quoted as -8. I am afraid I didn t accept that he
genuinely believed that the average of 5 and -14 was actually -9 even
after his original calculation had been called into question. I thought
he was just generating his usual smokescreen when faced with an
embarrassing situation.

I didn't see this thread (or didn't bother with it). Presumably the
answer of -4.5 appeared somewhere.

The funny part about the discussion is that for correct analysis of
whether "Global Warming" is happening or not (it's not!) I have been
advocating the simplest form of daily temperature measurement, i.e.
reading a thermometer at 9am and writing the figure down. No
calculations are required.
Roger Chapman preferred to get the highest and lowest temperature for
the day and average them. And nobody in that thread was able to get
the average correct!
As well as that, maximum/minimum thermometers require resetting after
each reading. In the 50 to 130 years old equipment that I was talking
about, that requires manual handling of a thermometer which is bound
to introduce errors, even to the extent of damaging the thermometer so
that it needs to be replaced.

It's far simpler and more accurate to read a thermometer without
touching it. Note that we are not talking about modern automated
equipment.

In message , Tim
Streater writes
On 26/02/2010 10:54, Roger Chapman wrote:
I dont like apologising any more than the next man but I do accept that
it needs to be done if circumstances warrant it even when the other
party is as unpleasant as Dennis frequently is but I am not going to be
gracious about it. This apology is for my benefit, not his.

The circumstances are that over on the DIY Data thread I branded Dennis
a liar because he claimed that the error in a calculation was down to a
simple typo, he had failed to press the right key for a 9.

The calculation in question was the simple average of 5C and -14C which
he originally quoted as -8. I am afraid I didnt accept that he
genuinely believed that the average of 5 and -14 was actually -9 even
after his original calculation had been called into question. I thought
he was just generating his usual smokescreen when faced with an
embarrassing situation.

I didn't see this thread (or didn't bother with it). Presumably the
answer of -4.5 appeared somewhere.

That would just be a half arsed apology ...

--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , Tim
Streater writes
On 26/02/2010 10:54, Roger Chapman wrote:
I don't like apologising any more than the next man but I do accept
that it needs to be done if circumstances warrant it even when the
other party is as unpleasant as Dennis frequently is but I am not
going to be gracious about it. This apology is for my benefit, not
his. The circumstances are that over on the DIY Data thread I branded
Dennis a liar because he claimed that the error in a calculation
was down to a simple typo, he had failed to press the right key for
a 9. The calculation in question was the simple average of 5C and -14C
which he originally quoted as -8. I am afraid I didn't accept that
he genuinely believed that the average of 5 and -14 was actually -9
even after his original calculation had been called into question.
I thought he was just generating his usual smokescreen when faced
with an embarrassing situation.

I didn't see this thread (or didn't bother with it). Presumably the
answer of -4.5 appeared somewhere.

That would just be a half arsed apology ...

Archie wrote:
Is it: 1. -8, 2. -9 or 3. -4.5?

I must admit I was disappointed that Archie chose to question my
ethics while ignoring your blatant lie but perhaps that is because you
are already considered beyond the pale.

I missed the original thread but went back to read it after your
"Apology". Denis's original post is shown below. I see nothing in
Denis's statement to justify your rant. You are assuming that Denis
meant to give the average of the two datapoints -14 and +5. Maybe he
did, maybe he didn't but his statement below is correct. I don't see any
blatant lie.

In the context of that thread and his repeated assertions that averaging
the maximum and minimum temperatures doesn't give an average for the day
you should have looked a little deeper. Dennis himself admitted to a
typo so even he accepted he had made a mistake. What he won't admit to
is that despite all his protestations to the contrary he didn't manage
to get the average of -14 and 5 correct. However that wasn't the blatant
lie which occurred in this thread and not the previous one. The blatant
lie was his response to Tim's question repeated below:

**********************
[Tim]
I didn't see this thread (or didn't bother with it). Presumably the
answer of -4.5 appeared somewhere.

[Dennis]
Not yet it hasn't.
**********************
When of course it had.

So its Jan and you get a clear night at -14C for a couple of hours,
then it clouds over and it goes to 1C and then its cloudy all day at
5C and you think the average is -8 when it obviously isn't. All you
have done is created a faulty data set.

Matty F wrote:

snip

The funny part about the discussion is that for correct analysis of
whether "Global Warming" is happening or not (it's not!) I have been
advocating the simplest form of daily temperature measurement, i.e.
reading a thermometer at 9am and writing the figure down. No
calculations are required.

Roger Chapman preferred to get the highest and lowest temperature for
the day and average them. And nobody in that thread was able to get
the average correct!

News to me.

As well as that, maximum/minimum thermometers require resetting after
each reading. In the 50 to 130 years old equipment that I was talking
about, that requires manual handling of a thermometer which is bound
to introduce errors, even to the extent of damaging the thermometer so
that it needs to be replaced.

Dubious conclusion.

It's far simpler and more accurate to read a thermometer without
touching it. Note that we are not talking about modern automated
equipment.

The only thing that can be said with any certainty about a temperature
measured at 9am apart from the time is that it will not be higher than
the maximum temperature of that day nor lower than the minimum. The
reason I think the max/min average is better is because it aproximates
to the true mean.

On 26/02/2010 23:00, Roger Chapman wrote:

[snip]

The only thing that can be said with any certainty about a temperature
measured at 9am apart from the time is that it will not be higher than
the maximum temperature of that day nor lower than the minimum. The
reason I think the max/min average is better is because it approximates
to the true mean.

I don't see why it should. The proper average is going to be obtained by
continuous measurements and getting the area under the curve. In
practice one might take an (automated) measurement every few minutes.
Two data points don't tell you much.

--
Tim

"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament"

Bill of Rights 1689

"Archie" wrote in message
...

You mean 5 + 14 = 19

Dived by 2 = 9.5

Add the minus sign for good measure and round up, or should that be down
for the shear hell of it?

Where am I going wrong Dennis?

The minus signs matter in arithmetic. You can't just leave them out and
add them later where you like.
5+(-14) = -9
-9/2= -4.5

As for the apology to Denis.

"I'm sorry BUT" is hardly an apology. More like an excuse to continue and
argument. Grimly got it spot on.

Archie


LOL - I am well aware of the arithmetic involved, I was more wondering if
Dennis would bite!

In the context of that thread and his repeated assertions that
averaging the maximum and minimum temperatures doesn't give an average
for the day you should have looked a little deeper. Dennis himself
admitted to a typo so even he accepted he had made a mistake. What he
won't admit to is that despite all his protestations to the contrary
he didn't manage to get the average of -14 and 5 correct. However that
wasn't the blatant lie which occurred in this thread and not the
previous one. The blatant lie was his response to Tim's question
repeated below:

**********************
[Tim]
I didn't see this thread (or didn't bother with it). Presumably the
answer of -4.5 appeared somewhere.

[Dennis]
Not yet it hasn't.
**********************
When of course it had.

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

LOL - I am well aware of the arithmetic involved, I was more wondering
if Dennis would bite!


I am just a simple soul. Some things go right over my head.

"Archie" wrote in message
...

LOL - I am well aware of the arithmetic involved, I was more wondering if
Dennis would bite!

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.

On Feb 27, 12:43 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
On 26/02/2010 23:00, Roger Chapman wrote:

[snip]

The only thing that can be said with any certainty about a temperature
measured at 9am apart from the time is that it will not be higher than
the maximum temperature of that day nor lower than the minimum. The
reason I think the max/min average is better is because it approximates
to the true mean.

I don't see why it should. The proper average is going to be obtained by
continuous measurements and getting the area under the curve. In
practice one might take an (automated) measurement every few minutes.
Two data points don't tell you much.

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.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
I don't like apologising any more than the next man but I do accept that it
needs to be done if circumstances warrant it even when the other party is
as unpleasant as Dennis frequently is but I am not going to be gracious
about it. This apology is for my benefit, not his.

The circumstances are that over on the DIY Data thread I branded Dennis a
liar because he claimed that the error in a calculation was down to a
simple typo, he had failed to press the right key for a 9.

The calculation in question was the simple average of 5C and -14C which
he originally quoted as -8. I am afraid I didn't accept that he genuinely
believed that the average of 5 and -14 was actually -9 even after his
original calculation had been called into question. I thought he was just
generating his usual smokescreen when faced with an embarrassing
situation.

However after a good nights sleep I have come to the conclusion that he
was being totally honest in putting forward the typo as the error.

So there you have it. I am sorry Dennis that I doubted your probity in
this particular circumstance.

But as to your monumental ineptitude in failing to average a positive and
negative integer correctly and then not spotting such an obvious mistake
when the calculation was called into question, that is something you will
have to live with as you are never *ever* going to be able to live that
down.

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:

In the context of that thread and his repeated assertions that averaging
the maximum and minimum temperatures doesn't give an average for the day
you should have looked a little deeper.

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.

Tim Streater wrote:

[snip]

The only thing that can be said with any certainty about a temperature
measured at 9am apart from the time is that it will not be higher than
the maximum temperature of that day nor lower than the minimum. The
reason I think the max/min average is better is because it approximates
to the true mean.

I don't see why it should. The proper average is going to be obtained by
continuous measurements and getting the area under the curve. In
practice one might take an (automated) measurement every few minutes.
Two data points don't tell you much.

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 2.7

Average 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.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Archie
writes

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

FFS, if you're going to so ungracious about it, why bother.
Call him a **** and be done with it.

As I said at the top the apology was for my benefit, not his. I managed
to make a mistake and to salve my conscience I need to admit

As for calling Dennis a **** why not indeed but that wasn't the object
of the exercise.

If you wanted to apologise to Denis you should have left it at that.
Instead, you went on to call him inept.
It was just an excuse to continue your feud. Consciensce, what conscience?

Number nine, number nine ...


--
geoff

vbg

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...

"Archie" wrote in message
...

LOL - I am well aware of the arithmetic involved, I was more wondering
if Dennis would bite!

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.



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


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...

"Archie" wrote in message
...

LOL - I am well aware of the arithmetic involved, I was more
wondering if Dennis would bite!

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.



What you mean is that they disagree, not that I am wrong.

Number nine, number nine ...

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...

"Archie" wrote in message
...

LOL - I am well aware of the arithmetic involved, I was more wondering
if Dennis would bite!

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.



What you mean is that they disagree, not that I am wrong.

Number nine, number nine ...

--
geoff

Nein, Nein, Nein. Do not argue with Dennis

Adam

dennis@home wrote:

snip

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.

What you mean is that they disagree, not that I am wrong.

Well you're the one who averaged -14 and 5 and came up with -9.

They resort to being rude to try and cover up their mistake.

You certainly do.

You have done the same in the past.
Its the same with this average, you just haven't read and understood
what I said.

Sadly we do understand much of what you say but it is mostly, to say the
least, contentious.

Its my fault for overestimating the level of intelligence of some here.

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.

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.