What question?
I think you will find the shift right is more relevant to your flawed argument.

Even if the plotting and records are correct and not fudged or simply made up, they do not prove AGW.  Catastrophic or otherwise.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 1:54pm:

I answered the only question I found worth answering, wassup need someone to explain things to you...  I did explain it to you...  you seem to have missed that.

It is really simple.

If the frequency at the mean or mode decreases it means the readings are dispersed a bit more widely. Read up on kurtosis.

So high temperature readings are a bit more dispersed, cold temperature readings are a bit more concentrated.

Second question: what does this mean?

The effect of changing Stevenson screens.

"While the designs of these screens have experienced some modifications during the ACORN-SAT period, the Bureau has
carried out tests that show the influence of these design changes on temperature measurements has not been material."

" However, throughout the last 100 years, Bureau of Meteorology guidance has allowed for a tolerance of ±0.5 °C for field checks of either in-glass or resistance thermometers.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/ACORN-SAT_IPR_Panel_Rep...

The Stevenson screens have been reduced in size from 0.23m³ to 0.06m³.

"Short Communication
Impact of two different sized Stevenson screens on air
temperature measurements"

". The 1-year field experiment consisted of comparing air temperatures measured at the two most commonly sized Stevenson screens used by the Spanish Meteorological State Agency (AEMET) since last century; the medium-sized Stevenson screen employed at the second-order weather stations, versus the large-sized Stevenson screen mainly used at the first-order meteorological stations. The main objective was to report the air temperature difference between these two differently sized Stevenson screens, and to study the impact on the observed differences of some weather elements (i.e. relative humidity, wind speed, total cloud cover, atmospheric pressure and global solar radiation). The results show that the medium-sized Stevenson screen tended to overheat daily maximum air temperatures (0.54 ∘C on yearly average) and also air temperatures recorded at 1300 UTC."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272494986_Impact_of_two_different_sized...

BoM has been changing Stevenson screens to the smaller size.

And they ignore these biases.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 9:10pm:


So you don't know what a normal distribution is?

LOL
One more time for BSc geology...

Grendel wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 9:04am:


I think you will find the shift right is more relevant to your flawed argument.

Even if the plotting and records are correct and not fudged or simply made up, they do not prove AGW.  Catastrophic or otherwise.

hope you get it this time.

lee wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 9:21pm:


Are the distributions normal? They are bellshaped, except not quite a bell shape is it? Are the distributions skewed?

None of this matters. I asked for the meaning in the shift in dispersion. Might as well ask my dog really.