North pole to melt this year?

still no comment on the fact that you posted to the very site i posted to weeks ago and put together the exact same graph i put up two days in a row on the 19th and 20th of March?

as for your other questions. you know the site to use now, it's the one i have been using for a long time. The other data sets show different things. let's see:

BEST shows virtually the SAME result as HadCrut3 but maybe slightly more warming, of course that is preliminary and that is Land Only



BEST preliminary Land Only

RSS shows a reasonable amount of COOLING and no warming at all:

RSS Satellite data shows cooling over the same period

UAH (which is put together by two very outspoken skeptics who are nonetheless "lukewarmers") ironically shows the MOST warming:

UAH shows warming

actually, I think GISS shows the most warming of all:


GISS shows the most warming

incidentally, i wasn't doing those in any order. I was just doing them as they came to me on the woodfortrees site. but if I had wanted to cherry-pick, I would have used RSS which shows cooling. I actually originally chose the one that has traditionally showed a good deal of warming. My timeframe was based on the idea that 10 years is not enough, but now we are starting to see 15 years of no SSW and I find that interesting. Another few years might even stretch that out to 20 years, by which I mean, if we have 2 or 3 more years of flat or cooling, then we might see the graph stretch back to 1995 without any SSW. But I also realize that it could start warming again immediately.

As for using less data than is available, if the goal is to look at the past 15 years, I think it is reasonable to look at the past 15 years. If we see that it hasn't continued to warm like it did for the 2 decades before that, this might turn out to be the start of a change. But I am aware of larger data sets and look at all of them regularly.

But let me ask you, why did you choose to start at 1979 in some of your discussions? Was it merely because you were only looking at the satellite feeds that started then or was it because it was convenient to your argument? I have mentioned other timeframes many times, I was focused on whether or not the warming has stalled in the past 15 years. It appears it has.

you asked:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
if you are correct that I am misunderstanding the term, then just tell me what i am misunderstanding. you are the one that sent me back to my own links. if you would prefer i call it something other than "trend" i can. why don't i just call it the average rate of rise. over the past 15 years, the HadCrut data shows an average rate of rise of .007 per decade. I think I understand it far better than you keep suggesting. you have not said much that is new or foreign to me. I don't understand how to do the analysis, but it seems you don't really know how either. at the end of the day, you kept avoiding doing the analysis, pointing to other people's work and finally pointing back to the exact graphs i originally put up 2 times.

if you know and understand so much about this, you are doing a great job hiding that fact. everything you have done to date, i could have done and, in some cases, DID do. so take this opportunity to tell me what a "trend" is and how I am misunderstanding the term.
 
you know Paso, I can do what you do. You don't answer questions yourself, you just point to others who do. That's quite easy and based on that method, I could pretend to know virtually anything. I think your game is up.

Having said that, I do appreciate the link (despite the rather sophomoric pretense behind it). I will read and consider.
 
I point to peer-reviewed scientific journals for the most part. I am a lawyer by post-graduate training and it is an occupational hazard. Unless you can cite precedence, judges do not care what you think. It is also pretty damn hard to post a hand drawn graph.
 
all I was asking for was the warming per year over the past 15 years. you stated dogmatically that we had indeed had statistically significant warming in the past 15 years but to date have still failed to present that rate. eventually, you posted to a graph that I had already posted to almost 3 weeks earlier, which showed approximately .007 degrees of celsius warming per year over the past 15 years (that's actually rounding up from .0066). Is that the warming you have been boldly declaring was statistically significant? Because now it sounds like you are saying that 15 years is too short to have statistical significance, which sounds reasonable except for the fact that it was you who said otherwise. Regardless, I think the lack of warming (not warmth!) over the past 15 years is quite interesting indeed. I say "not warmth" in parentheses because mentioning that 9 of the past 10 hottest years on record have been since 2000, which speaks only of warmth but not of warming.

If one climbs a mountain, once they have arrived at the top and the rate of rise has come near an end, it can nonetheless be true that (10 of the highest steps taken have been in the last 12 steps) but that doesn't change the fact that your rate of ascent has come to a near stop. this is what i am getting at, while fully acknowledging and understanding we are at high temperatures when compared to the past 200 years AND that we might start warming ever more quickly any day now.

My primary point is that it has NOT been happening for the past 15 years and so far you have not been able to come against that point with much to refute it at all. Merely mentioning that we are hot right now is not very helpful to the discussion, though it is true, because I am not disagreeing with that point. If you want to refute the point, show that the warming has continued unabated for the past 15 years. Merely adding in the previous 20 years of warming doesn't prove your point either, it only proves that over the past 35 years we have warmed, but I fully agree with that point. I am curious about the rate of warming over the past 15 years and the graph you put up (that I had already put up) shows precious little in that department doesn't it?
 
You don't read my links and you do not understand science or the scientific method. This is just arguing in circles. HadCRUT3 is not the only temperature record (it is not even the only record from Hadley) and it has certain known limitations. The two limitations at play in your little phony cherry picking of data are: (1) it undersamples the arctic and (2) as a result, in part from #1, it shows 1998 as the warmest year to date (unlike all or most of the other records).

Now if you knew or cared about science, the scientific method, or statistics you would look at a longer time frame, the other well known world wide records, attempt to remove the distortions (noise) caused by El Nino or perhaps all three. This is exactly what the peer-reviewed paper that I linked at the outset of this little diversion did. They also went into all of the records.

Guess what happens when you do this?

When you remove the noise, the intervals over which you can obtain statistically significant warming shorten. You can get it from 2000 to the present and certainly from 1997 to the present. You do not care about this though (even though this was my challenge both to and from you).

You would rather claim that I cannot write down some dots, average them, and draw a line. I graduated with honors from The University of Texas School of Law where I graded on to Texas Law Review. Do you have any idea how hard this is? I was originally a biology major (although I wound up with a minor because I switched concentrations). It is easy to draw a graph on data by hand. I readily admit that I do not know how to put it into a computer program so that I can export it to a jpg and display it on the internet. I can scan a hand drawing but it will look like **** especially since I do not have any graph paper.

I really feel like I am arguing with my dog.
 
I would have thought you actually clicked on the links. More is the pity. If you do not understand that El Nino is noise, then you need to take introductory statistics.
 
Here is GISS from 1997 until the present:

The Link

The original link that I posted for this is one page back. My original link takes you to HadCRUT3 from 1997 to the present.
 
Paso, on April 7th at 12:56 PM, I posted links to every major temperature record's report from 1997-2012. I also pointed out that only one of those showed MORE warming than the HadCrut3. BEST, and GISS were virtually identical while the RSS showed cooling over the same period (significantly more cooling than HadCRut3 shows warming), while the UAH showed the most warming. You keep introducing facts that I have already introduced and acting as if I am the one who doesn't understand. The only difference I can see is that my responses are more complete and better linked. In that one response I had 4 different links to the world's most accepted temperature records. You are letting a lot hinge on one peer-reviewed paper that attempts to remove noise. That is a highly speculative endeavor and to act as if the fact that it is peer-reviewed makes it ironclad is ridiculous. All that means is that the reviewers found it compelling enough and rigorous enough to let it pass. MANY peer-reviewed papers turn out to not be terribly helpful at all.
 
Ag with Kids wanted to see GISS so I linked him GISS. I suppose he could have clicked on your link (which I am pretty sure he did not since he does not appear to have clicked on any of my links). GISS shows warming. This entire exercise (which is amazingly tiresome and tedious) just further demonstrates to me that neither you nor Ag with Kids are actually interested in science.

You try to cherry pick a time frame and then are completely uninterested in what it does and does not show. Ag with Kids rejects 1995-2010 out of hand I suppose pretending that it is because it is a 16 year time frame but really because he knows what it will show. Many of the false skeptics realize that with noisy data (which temperature is) you frequently need long time frames or to remove the noise in order to discern a statistically significant trend. This is science (and math).

I posted a link a few pages back to Real Climate or maybe Skeptical Science concerning cherry picking intervals. They absolutely nailed this topic. Why would I reinvent the wheel when someone else has done it before? The real important thing in this is to understand what and why they are doing things.
 
paso, i have shown repeatedly why your methods in this past few weeks are transparent. but that aside, AKW didn't avoid the 16 year timeframe. In fact, he specifically acknowledged it and knows that it shows warming (not very much, but that's beside the point). We started this "sub-discussion" by mentioning the past 15 year's lack of warming. I don't think using 15 years up to the current timeframe (particularly when this is a specific timeframe used by one of the world's leading apologists for Global Warming) is a strange thing to do at all. We both acknowledged warming repeatedly. We know that longer timeframes show more warming. None of that is news to us and none of it takes away from our point that in the past 15 years the warming has been "subtle" to say the least. You were the one who began saying dogmatically that the past 15 years shows Statistically Significant Warming, something that you have not shown and have now backpedaled on. It is not our fault that you specifically addressed our 15 year timeframe and said we were wrong. We have now shown that you were wrong. There has not been SSW in the past 15 years in at least 3 out of 5 of the datasets and probably 4 out of 5. The UAH set is probably the only one that shows SSW and it would still be quite modest. That's interesting considering we have cranked MORE and MORE CO2 into the atmosphere during that timeframe. I know that warming is not supposed to be constant, but 15 years with little to no warming is surprising to all. Even the most ardent believers in Global Warming showed concern in the climate gate emails about this issue, and those emails were before the past 3 or 4 years of continued no warming, so to pretend it is only in our minds is both ridiculous and untenable. Now, let's see if warming restarts this year shall we?
 
SkepticsvRealists_500.gif
 
it's like you have no response. repeating the same things over and over but not letting our points inform you is a strange way to communicate.
 
You do not understand trend nor how to obtain statistically significant results. You also do not understand what statistically significant results mean and do not mean. I can just ignore you (which I do for long intervals) or keep posting material that others might find useful and helpful. This chart demonstrates how cherry picking a long series of data can lead to very deceptive claims.

Do you think the same is true when there are multiple sources of that data over a time frame?

Do you think a real scientist interested in reality would want to examine all of the data and attempt to reconcile and discern the real trend?

The earth's temperature has not been flat for the last fifteen years. It has continued to warm at approximately the same pace and in a statistically significant way. You and Ag with Kids can continue to play your silly games which change neither the science nor the simple truth. I have bent over backwards to try to explain why this is the case, but I will try to give this little rabbit trail a rest for now.
 
wow, even after your utter and complete failure to make your point (statistically significant warming over the past 15 years) you continue to claim its truth as some sort of mantra? Paso, I can claim all day long that the moon is made of cheese but that doesn't make it so. The past 15 years have not shown statistically significant warming and the small rate of rise they have shown is significantly less than the rate of rise in the 19th Century. That no doubt is a horrible problem for your argument, but there it is.

If I am wrong, then show that I am wrong. I have given you every chance to do so and you have failed. You finally showed a graph that I had posted 2 times 3 weeks earlier than you. It shows virtually a flatline over the past 15 years. How that makes your point is utterly beyond me. Adding the previous 20 years to the past 15 years of course changes the graph, the slope and the statistical significance. The past 35 years HAVE shown statistically significant warming. I get that and have granted it multiple times. I was focused on the past 15 years because the warming has come to a rather abrupt halt and we have observed merely a maintenance of the warm temperatures we reached by the end of the 90s. We have not seen the temperatures continue to rise. That is plain to see and even some of the world's most well-known believers in Anthropogenic Global Warming have acknowledged it and attempted to explain it. Your inability to recognize it, acknowledge it or explain it really does nothing for your argument in this thread. I am just glad that this thread is probably not going anywhere any time soon, so unlike other threads, this is all here for anyone to see.
 
paso,

Your frustration is warranted, but I would encourage you to continue making the effort. For one thing, it is entertaining to read a debate between a scientist and someone who doesn't realize his limitations.

More importantly, it is instructive to those of us who are not scientists but appreciate the actual data and can recognize the difference between science and propaganda.
 
The peer-reviewed article Global temperature evolution 1979–2010 by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf contains graphs and material showing empirical evidence of continuing global warming from 1979 through 2010. Once the noise (ie short term distortions such as El Nino) is removed, the signal (ie statistically significant trend) is very uniform including from 1997 to 2010. I have repeatedly referenced and linked both the article along with charts from it. I cannot help that you neither read nor can understand it. I view what they did as both understandable and pretty solid science.

The Link
 
paso, you are all talk. you said dogmatically that there was SSW the past 15 years and have still utterly failed to show it. instead, you resort back to a paper that uses the 31 year timeframe from 1979-2010. I have NO doubt or lack of understanding that taking a 31 year timeframe back to 1979, we have observed warming and even SSW. I have repeatedly acknowledged that and grant it willingly. The question I have is as to whether or not the warming that we have seen since 1979 (largely until the late 90's), has now slowed significantly. Clearly it has. Might it continue on upwards at the rate we were observing through 1998 soon? Of course. Does that mean that we have not seen a 10-15 year hiatus from warming that is at least notable enough to have caused some studies on the subject? no. the fact that you can't admit that is quite telling. the fact that you continue to purposely misunderstand our request and then pretend you have answered it is fairly pathetic. only the future knows if the warming will continue, but the break we have taken is causing some to sweat.

As for Foster (AKA Tamino) and Rahmstorf's paper, i knew about it months ago (thanks Watts!). I don't have the training to analyze the math or statistics it is based upon, but I am able to grasp the big picture. At the end of the day, it sounds plausible yet nonetheless highly speculative. One criticism levied against the paper is that they considered ENSO as if it was an "exogenous" when it is merely a cyclical process which may contribute more heat than cooling. Regardless, it is up for debate as to whether or not it can explain some of the lack of warming (remember, at the end of the day, Foster and Rahmstorf are trying to explain away the dramatic slowdown in warming we have seen, so in one sense the paper makes MY point, not yours) is dubious at best. Beyond that, it is at least amusing that the year following the data they analyzed did not at all show warming. Now, they had submitted their paper for publication long before 2011 was up so I am not accusing them, I just mention it because 2011 didn't go their way. 2012 is not particularly starting out with a bang in terms of warming, but only 1/4th is in the books eh?
 
Although I have posted this before, I will post it again. The paper that I have linked now twice shows statistically significant warming over the entire time frame of 1979 to 2010 in intervals as short as 10 years or even less. This is what occurs when you remove short term variances (aka noise). This would obviously include 1997 (or 1996) to 2010 (or 2011 if you added it). You just do not get this stuff. Your insulting attitude is also rather pathetic given how far over your head I am.
 
what exactly is uniformed, et al arguing?

are they saying there's no warming since 1997?

You guys (uninformed et al) do realize the next time we have a strong El Nino, which might be this year, will be a new record warm year GLOBALLY, right?

Or are you in that much denial?
 
That is an interesting spin on what occurred. It is, however, inaccurate. The original claim by mop was that temperatures have been flat for the last 15 years. The precise time frame this references has moved around a bit on this thread and goes anywhere from 1995-2010 to 1998-2012. I think 1997-2011 is what AwK settled upon and this is a 15 year time frame. The statistically significant warming part was added by me in a reference to what Phil Jones said in a BBC interview. On the absolute raw data sets between 1997 and 2011, there has been warming in several of the data sets including HadCRUT3 which was the data set selected by mop (it is larger in GISS). It is not statistically significant however.

In order to obtain statistically significant warming (95% confidence level), you need to expand the time frame, look at all the temperature databases, or remove short-term distortions (called noise) from the databases. The peer-reviewed paper that I linked did this for the temperature from 1979 until 2010. I posted a link to the entire paper along with several charts from it. The paper indicated (which should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with science or math) that once the noise was removed, you could obtain statistically significant results over far shorter time frames including ones as short as either 7 or 10 years (I forget exactly which one it is). The paper also indicated that once the noise was removed the two warmest years in all datasets were 2009 and 2010.

The paper also indicated that the warming signal was uniform between 1979 and 2010. I know exactly what this means for 1997-2011 (and I linked a chart showing the data for the entire time frame including 1996-2010), but apparently it is cute to pretend that using a very uniform statistically significant trend from 1979 to 2010 somehow is not quite good enough to demonstrate some smaller time frame. This is silly and it damn sure is not science.
 
figure05.jpg


This is the chart from the peer-reviewed paper (although the image is hosted on a blog) showing what all five data sets look like once the data is adjusted. I see the trend without even reading the paper.
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top