Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 Next
Comments 70851 to 70900:
-
caroza at 21:34 PM on 5 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Riccardo @40, agree - Watts hasn't demonstrated any ability to do the science yet so no-one actually analysing the data should pay him any attention. But DMarshall is correct about the size of the following he has, and unfortunately there seems to be an epidemic of Dunning-Kruger syndrome amongst his followers so they buy into his science fiction (er, mods, what's the plural of hominem?) I don't think the authors should have stuck to his stipulations, but I tend to agree with "should have stated right at the outset as to why they chose to analyse the data the way they did", if only to grab the scientific high ground right from the start. It comes across much more strongly than doing it in rebuttal. It's disgraceful that science has to become a PR exercise to cope with this, but it's also reality. -
caroza at 21:24 PM on 5 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
DMarshall @39, I can answer a couple of these. #3 in his points of agreement (the quote from David Whitehouse/GWPF, which has subsequently been hyped into a new denier meme that the "human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated"). This is a soundbite cherry-picked from a paragraph which a) is a conditional statement, not a conclusion or statement of fact, and b) about questions which the paper didn't attempt to answer. Very good rebuttal on The Way Things Break. Disagreements: #1 I'm sure somebody, somewhere has looked at the actual numbers (I haven't), but the point is that the BEST results and the two papers Watts cites here (Menne et al and Fall et al) agree, so even if using 60 years was catastrophically wrong, it doesn't seem to have biased the results. (Of course Watts will be trying to argue that that the BEST results would be very different from the other two papers if they had used 30 years worth of data instead of 60 - but then he should run the numbers himself and demonstrate this convincingly. Don't hold your breath.) Also in #1, he quotes Willis Eschenbach's comment: "That seems crazy to me. Why compare the worst stations to all stations? Why not compare them to the best stations?" This is nonsense. The objective is to use all the data to compute a mean and trend. So, simplistically, you get "the number" (whatever metric you're computing) from all the data, then you get "the number" from the worst data, and you compare the two results to see whether the worst stations introduce a bias to the overall results. Whether the "best" stations introduce a bias is a completely separate question (and again you would compare them to everything). Disagreement #2: Watts is confusing measurements with trends. Again. The fact that a station is much hotter (or colder) than another station is irrelevant for computing the trend, provided temperature changes over time at the same rate at both locations. What the authors are saying is that the hot spots cover too small an area for their growth to have a big impact on the trend. (Some warming in urban areas will be due to increased urbanisation.) #3 I think several people have observed that this is an outstanding example of pot-kettle-black... ;) Unlike Watt's Heartland Institute paper, these have all been submitted for peer review. Hope that helps - I'm sure others will chip in. -
Riccardo at 21:21 PM on 5 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
DMarshall so a team of professional scientists should stick to what a former TV weatherman "stipulated"? The surface station project provided the raw data, i.e. what "the casual observer thinks ought to cause bias"; the Berkely team analysed those data and reported the conclusions. You may disagree, as Watt does, on BEST's methodology but you can not ask the Berkley team to comply with Watt's wishes or expectations. Not even Watt asked that much. -
Paul D at 20:16 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Simple decision analysis: 1. What was the temperature 100 years ago? 2. What is it today? 3. If higher, then we may need to do something, if not then don't. 4. Does it look like it is cooling today? 5. If yes then jump to 6 otherwise continue with low carbon policies. 6. Has it 'cooled' for short periods (a few years) in the past 100 years? 7. In the case of 6 being yes, then the only way of being sure of a long term period of cooling is to wait for a number of decades and see what happens. If test 3 shows warming over hundred years then the probability is high that current cooling is short term and the burden of proof is on skeptics to show it is long term. Which requires a long wait and eliminates that as an input to policy decisions today. So we continue with low carbon policies. 8. If the test at 6 is negative and the past 100 years has seen long periods (30 years or so) of cooling (we haven't seen that) then skeptics may have a point. Basically, based on risk and probabilities and the cherry picking temperature scenarios presented by many skeptics. They basically lose any policy argument based on their own analysis of temperature records. So Nigel Lawson and similar political ideologists are perverting logic and the course of decision making by presenting graphs of recent temperature records (10 years). -
DMarshall at 20:16 PM on 5 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Watts' criticism can be found at the link below. Can anyone comment if he has valid criticism of the methodology? I think that Muller might have been mistaken to not stick to what Watts stipulated or should have stated right at the outset as to why they chose to analyse the data the way they did. Watts' reasons against BEST results Watts may be an amateur but he has a huge audience and influence. Since he put himself out there by saying he would accept the results, cornering him would really have taken the wind out of the denialist and skeptic sails, if the data supported AGW. -
caroza at 19:59 PM on 5 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Glenn @37: Ant? Watt Ant? (Sorry, that was completely irresistible!) ChrisKoz @12: I think the mug joke is referring to Occupy Wall Street ("we are the 99%") and the study showing that 97% of climate scientists agree with the premise of AGW. I rather like it - I'll buy one of those if they make them (although I'm not a climate scientist either). Camburn @24, John Russell @25, I know zilch about IR photography, but does the "ground" colour represent the ground temperature you would obtain by sticking a probe in the mud, or the temperature of the layer of air immediately above it? Which can be quite different from both the ground temperature and the temp at about shin level. -
michael sweet at 19:36 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Camburn: What makes you think that the climate changes 200 years ago were natural and not anthropogenic? See this Realclimate post that describes the growing recognition that the Earth was cooling 5000 years ago and AGW started then due to land use changes by ancient farmers. It appears that ancient farmers had dramatic effects on climate. The little ice age deniers crow about may be just due to changes in anthropogenic forcings at that time. Please provide links to data that supports your claim that climate changes in the past 200 years were natural and not human caused. -
michael sweet at 19:08 PM on 5 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Glenn, That is not how it happened at all. C&S analyzed the data first and then claimed for over a decade that climate was cooling and their unbiased satelite data showed it [Pielke Sr advocated using satelite data as the primary metric of AGW during this time, perhaps this relates to his current proposal to use ocean heat]. RSS and others then showed that the C&S analysis was in error and corrected them. C&S only changed their calculations after they were proven wrong. C&S did not "bounce off each other", rather C&S were dragged kicking and screaming to where they are now. C&S now ignores the fact that they were wrong and deniers used their data over that time to mislead policymakers in the worst way. Every error they made caused a cooling bias in their record? Normally we find that when scientists have to make several choices in data analysis they have some errors that increase the result and some that lower it. This results in the final analysis being close to the true result. Why did C&S only have cooling errors? C&S continue to run lower than RSS, should I believe that? The entire approach of C&S was wrong and they deserve to be called out on it. This needs to be remembered when we look at their current proposals. Should we listen to Hansen who has always been at the "warmest" extreme and has a long record as being correct, or should we listen to "skeptics" with an equally long record of being wrong? Would you go to a doctor whose last 10 patients died due to neglegience or one whose last 10 patients were corrrectly treated? -
Rob Painting at 18:42 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
The current warming, in both hemispheres, is unique in the last 20,000 years, see: Björck(2011). So yeah, I'd call that really dramatic. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:33 PM on 5 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
CBD @13 "I didn't see any papers from Spencer or Christy on their early satellite temperature record, but if any do eventually get added it would be worthwhile to indicate that they later agreed they had gotten it wrong. Et cetera." I would take a little exception to this comment. Whle there are grounds for doubting C & S's scientific credentials on other issues, I don't see grounds for questioning them on this. They used one analytical technique, RSS have used another. They have bounced off each other and seem to have homed in on a common result. That is how science is meant to work and I have seen nothing in the interplay between these 2 groups over many years to suggest otherwise. Just because we have valid criticisms about other aspects of the science they are putting forward does not meen that we should label every activity they have engaged in as flawed. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:16 PM on 5 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
caerbannog @28 "4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting." And Ants' basis for this claim that this reduction in stations used 'compromises "something" is what'? Sorry, WUWT is a maths free zone so he can't answer that question. "5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming." Again, how does removing a warm station bias the record. As distinct from removing a warming station, which would cause a cooling bias in the record. Like deleting stations from the Canadian Arctic. Ants' seems all to willing to pander to the basic innumeracy of his audience with emotive but badly reasoned views. -
Tom Curtis at 16:42 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Camburn @23, yes, you are playing tricks. The first obvious trick you are playing is the appeal to uncertain data to undermine the impact of well known data. The following graph shows the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval of BEST data, along with trends:
Although these show the trends of the confidence interval rather than the confidence interval of the trend, it is clear that data prior to 1880 is insufficiently exact to distinguish with confidence between zero trend over the course of the 19th century, and a moderate trend (0.14 degrees C per decade), although substantially less than that of the last 40 years.
When the denier habit of using short trends which lack statistical significance (because they are short) is shown for the smoke and mirrors it is, you appeal to long trends which still lack statistical significane because of the uncertainty of the data. It's the same trick, it just had not yet been exposed.
I should note that any long term trend in the 19th century is almost certainly not due to the mythical "recovery from the little ice age", but entirely due to some exceptionally cold years at the start of the 19th century due to the Dalton Minimum and the eruption of Mount Tambora. Indeed, examination of the BEST 20 year average data shows the late 18th century to have been about as warm as the 1850's (with very low confidence).
Your second trick is asserting straight out falsehoods such as "[the] GissTemp as the extrapolation does not match DMI observations". Really?
-
dhogaza at 15:38 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Camburn:I don't know how to upload pictures or I would.
Personally, I'd expect any erstwhile "Galileo" to be capable of learning something as simple of this, given that their presumption is that they're overturning a wide swath of modern science ... (-Snip-)Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
-
dana1981 at 15:25 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Hypotheticals like that are pretty useless anyway. If in 4 years there are leprechauns and unicorns in my backyard, that is worth looking at in very serious fashion too. Meanwhile, there actually is a continuing global warming trend for the past 40+ years. When are we going to start taking that seriously? -
chriskoz at 15:00 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Camburn @20 If the cooling, slowing, or lack of warming [...] for the past 10 years continues for another 4 years, it is worth looking at in a very serious fashion You have just shown not only the ignorance of the statistical nature of the processes we are talking about; but also the disregard to the content of dana's article. Dana cited the work which has proved that at least 17y of data is required for any statistical significance: Santer et al. (2011) Your period of 14 years, that you want to cherry-pick in some 4 years, will be insignifficant. If I was you and trying to be as skeptic as you, I would say, that we need to wait for some more: 7 years. Or I would say "perhaps we can find out with usual 95% confidence, that 2000+ trend is different than previous century trend, using given statistical test" if I wanted to challenge Santer et al. (2011) findings. -
dana1981 at 14:42 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Camburn: a) "dramatic" is a wholly subjective term. b) The recent warming trend is still going and will only accelerate unless we get GHG emissions under control. Arguing that it's not "dramatic" yet is rather pointless. Who cares if it's "dramatic" as compared to other recent warming periods? Let's please discuss some science as opposed to subjective rhetoric. -
Utahn at 14:39 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Camburn: "As far as HadCrut3. It used to be the established metric. ". Are you saying there was a trend before 1900? I don't see much there, but maybe I messed up here? Trends 1800-1900, 1900-2000 -
Camburn at 14:32 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Spaerica: IF HadCrut3 is a reliable metric, then how in the world am I cherry picking? This sort of arguement baffles me. HadCrut3 has the most documentation for a long based temp metric. When you are going back to the 1800's, it was the first to established the temps. This is getting to the point of being silly. We have a long term warming trend.....agree? The recent warming trend is NOT a dramatic one in comparison to previous, within 200 years.......agree? -
Bob Lacatena at 14:19 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
23, Camburn,I am not trying to "play tricks".
laughsNote the long term warming for the past 200 years or so.
So what? I've been aging myself for 50. If I get hit by a car and die, will you tell everyone I died of old age, as evidenced by the fact that I'd been aging steadily for 50 years? Use some sense.Actually, you have proved my point.
No, actually, you proved mine.So, show us a graph of the past 200 years?
I did. You need to see it all at once? To prove what? That global climate recovered from the Little Ice Age before rocketing into temperatures not seen in thousands of years, which are a result of an unnatural forcing with a source and pace never seen on this planet in it's entire history?Or is all of a sudden HadCrut3 not a realiable metric anymore?
No, it's just a perfect example of a cherry pick on your part, and I thank you for it. It makes it clear to any truly skeptical reader exactly what sort of games deniers play to sow doubt. -
Composer99 at 14:13 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
And any further comment regarding forcings should be on the thread linked by myself or related threads. -
Composer99 at 14:11 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
The question still remains, how much is caused by co2,ch4 etc and how much is the result of normal forces. Of course - it's not like climatologists have been studying these kinds of things in an effort to quantify the contributions of solar forcings, greenhouse gas forcings, aerosols, water vapour feedbacks, cloud feedbacks, and so on. ... Oh, wait. They have been. -
Camburn at 14:11 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Spaerica: No, I am not trying to "play tricks". I don't know how to upload pictures or I would. Note the long term warming for the past 200 years or so. Note the warming from even longer, 1910-1945. Over 30 years so this is suppose to be important....right? (-Snip-) Actually, you have proved my point. During the past 200 years there have been short term period of warming, short term periods of cooling. The general trend has been one of warming, as the warming trends overcame the cooling periods. So, show us a graph of the past 200 years? As far as HadCrut3. It used to be the established metric. I still have problems with GissTemp as the extrapolation does not match DMI observations. (-Snip-)Response:[DB] "I still have problems with GissTemp as the extrapolation does not match DMI observations."
Note that DMI is a product synthesized from models and augmented by some observational data; it is not an observational product, nor is it a global product. Thus your point is seriously in error.
Multiple off-topic bits snipped. Please see the earlier Warning to you.
-
Bob Lacatena at 14:02 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
20, Camburn,...it also must be noted at least, as it could be a short term trend change...
You didn't really say that, did you? Did you even read the post above? Or did your fingers simply snap into denial mode by instinct? -
Bob Lacatena at 14:01 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
19, Camburn, First, here's your skeptic game played with 1800 to 1900:
And here it is with 1900 to 1975:
This is fun. Can we play some more?
And here's your graph from woodfortrees.org:
And here is yours using the BEST data instead of HADCRUT (which is known to be low among all data sets for modern warming because it does not provide any coverage of the area of the globe with the greatest anomalies, the poles):
I am assuming that the point that you are too shy to make is that warming from 1917-1943 was equivalent to modern warming, so it must all be natural.
You ignore the fact that the first spate of warming lasted only 20 years, while the current warming has lasted more than 30 and is continuing.
You ignore the fact that the warming from 1917-1943 did not push temperatures above levels not seen in thousands of years, with a threat to push them above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years.
You cherry pick start and end dates for both of your series. You cherry pick the data source. You cherry pick the duration.
Oh, wait! I'm sorry. I didn't realize. You really had me going there.
Thank you! Thank you!
Your point was clearly to demonstrate the main topic of this post -- that deniers play games with graphs to trick people.
Well done, Camburn. You totally Poe'd me. Totally.
-
Camburn at 13:43 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Sphaerica@18: My point is, one would expect the rise after 1970 as we were in the midst of a Grand Solar Maximum. The rise of the early 20th century has had various reasons for it, but none really stand out as correct or wrong. My point is that the warming presently is not dramatic. If the cooling, slowing, or lack of warming, whatever you want to call it for the past 10 years continues for another 4 years, it is worth looking at in a very serious fashion. Tom@16: (-Snip-)Response:[DB] Moderation complaints snipped. You are being egregiously off-topic.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
WheelsOC at 13:39 PM on 5 November 2011Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline
She has put up a post supposedly addressing the issue of a "pause," and says that while there isn't a statistically significant pause, there's no evidence to say it didn't happen. Also she is now claiming that BEST can't say anything about global warming because it's a land-only data set. Apparently since land only covers 30% of the globe in a reasonably well-distributed manner, it's unable to say anything about global climate... Tamino has already called her out for dodging his question about having a scientific basis for her claims that warming paused since 1998 with BEST data, and using that claim to attack Muller. -
Camburn at 13:37 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Sphaerica @18: Ok......look at the rate of rise in the following graphs: wood for trees comparison of two time periodsResponse: [JC] This argument is examined in What caused early 20th Century warming? Note: we went to the trouble of writing three levels of rebuttals (the advanced version by Dana is particularly high value) so I recommend reading those pages. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:30 PM on 5 November 2011Back from the Dead: Lost Open Mind Posts
Added the following: Nov 12, 2006 Picking Cherries Nov 15, 2006 Who the heck started all this global warming fuss anyway? Nov 17, 2006 Monckton part ? Nov 21, 2006 The Thermometer Record Nov 27, 2006 Warming up to Iceland Nov 30, 2006 Supreme Court Nov 30, 2006 True Grit Dec 4, 2006 Wherefore art thou warming? -Still Missing- Dec 5, 2006 Wherefore art thou warming? Part 2 Dec 7, 2006 Honest doubt, honestly expressed -Still Missing- Dec 7, 2006 Questiones Naturales -Still Missing- Dec 9, 2006 Models on the Table -Still Missing- Dec 11, 2006 Balloons and other things Dec 12, 2006 Clearing the Air Dec 15, 2006 Moosehead Lake Dec 17, 2006 Al Gore Dec 28, 2006 Svalbard Saga Dec 31, 2006 Weighting for Averages Jan 5, 2007 Temperature Records of the Week Jan 9, 2007 The Signs are Everywhere -Still Missing- Jan 13, 2007 Coming soon to a blog near you -Still Missing- Jan 14, 2007 Once More, with Feeling -Still Missing- Jan 23, 2007 Change in the Wind -Still Missing- Jan 24, 2007 Here Comes the Sun, part 2 -Still Missing- Feb 15, 2007 Millerism -Still Missing- Feb 24, 2007 Question for Believers -Still Missing- Feb 24, 2007 Water, Water, Everywhere, Feb 26, 2007 Congratulations, Al -Still Missing- Mar 6, 2007 Fast CO2 -Still Missing- Mar 7, 2007 Questions and Answers Mar 13, 2007 The Long, Hot Winter -Still Missing- Mar 15, 2007 Crisis? Apr 11, 2007 A Tale of Two Cities Apr 15, 2007 Temperature Records of the Week: Shelby County, Tennessee Apr 17, 2007 Pay It Forward -Still Missing- Apr 27, 2007 Debate Numbers -Still Missing- May 30, 2007 Note to readers Oct 5, 2007 Wait For It... -Still Missing- Oct 19, 2007 IPC projection falsified Nov 4, 2008 Northern Ice Northern Ice Nov 5, 2008 Yes We Can -Still Missing- July 8, 2009 Vapor Lock July 13, 2009 Why should we make sacrifices? July 14, 2009 Warming, Interrupted? Aug 4, 2009 Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature Aug 5, 2009 Open Thread #15 Aug 6, 2009 Graph Jam Aug 12, 2009 Monbiot vs Plimer Aug 19, 2009 CO2 and the Volcanoes Aug 22, 2009 Constant Aug 23, 2009 Sea Floor Gas Aug 24, 2009 Methane North and South Aug 26, 2009 Loony bin -
Bob Lacatena at 13:05 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
15, Camburn, If you have an intelligent, defensible point to make then make it. Vague, indecipherable implications of doubt and distrust are worth nothing (unless your goal is simply to confuse and befuddle people). -
nigelj at 12:23 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Global warming is like slowly puting on more clothes on a hot day, you will get hotter and hotter. But if the sun goes behind a cloud you will get cooler for a short period. -
Tom Curtis at 12:14 PM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Camburn @15, at no point on the graph does a short term trend (ie, less than 13 years) become a reliable indicator of future trends. At all points on the graph, medium term trends (20 - 40 years) are reasonably reliable indicators of future trends, although they fail at certain well known inflection points. Most importantly, at all points in the graph, the best predictor of future trends has been Global Circulation Models incorporating known forcings including (most importantly) anthropogenic forcings. Which just goes to show, physics is a better predictor than statistics, which is a better predictor than statistics done badly. And (as though you didn't already know), at the moment both physics and statistics done well both predict an ongoing upward trend. As a result, agw deniers just can't keep their focus of statistics done badly. -
barry1487 at 12:06 PM on 5 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Anthony Watts was surprised to learn the pdf had been deleted, and kind enough to email me a working link to Fall et al 2011. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf Having read through, I have to retract my comments above. The interpretation I gave came not from the study itself, now I remember, but from an article on the paper at WUWT. Nowhere in the paper is it suggested that biases in min/max trends make the mean trend suspect. -
Camburn at 11:40 AM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
I would recommend that you go back a bit further in time with the graph, say approx 200 years? Gets quite interesting. -
Andy Skuce at 11:17 AM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
@ WSteven: I don't see how deniers can continue fooling themselves. They don't have to fool themselves, just the rest of us. For their purposes, it suffices for their arguments to be noisy, not coherent. -
dana1981 at 10:16 AM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
*these are not the trends you are looking for* Utahn - no worries, the post is coming soon! Probably Monday at the latest, maybe even tomorrow. -
Utahn at 09:59 AM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Thanks Dana, I'll look forward to it, you tease! -
Daniel Bailey at 09:57 AM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
@ Sphaerica "there are no actual temporary cooling trends" That's a great Obi-Wan channeling act you've got going there. ;) -
dana1981 at 09:53 AM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Utahn @8 - thanks. We've got another post in the works comparing the various data sets. Short answer - BEST is comparable with NOAA and GISS land-only. Almost identical long-term warming trends, in fact. HadCRUT is biased lower, but that's not news. The satellite analysis is where it gets interesting, but I don't want to spoil the post. -
WSteven at 09:45 AM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
7. @Sphaerica. "here are no actual temporary cooling trends" Yeah, I knew that. Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. -
Utahn at 09:43 AM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Really excellent, figure 1 will save me a lot of time. Is 0.27/decade comparable to other datasets, or I guess warmer as land only? Thanks! -
Bob Lacatena at 07:56 AM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
6, WSteven, Two notes. First, there are no actual temporary cooling trends. You see them only because of a careful selection of endpoints. It's actually a whole lot easier to get a graph with a series of warming trends (almost any choice of end points will give them to you):
Second, the gradual flattening of the downward trends is not an optical illusion, but I'm not sure that it's anything more than coincidence, either.
-
WSteven at 07:28 AM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
In fig 1, the denialist's view, you can almost see the slope of the temporary cooling trends becoming more positive each decadal cycle. I'm not sure if I'm actually seeing that, or if that's some sort of optical illusion. Regardless, it's obvious that the start and end points are always higher than the previous decade. I don't see how deniers can continue fooling themselves. -
AussieinUSA at 07:25 AM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Figure 1, is an excellent representation of how the deniers look at the temp record. Having recently shown this graph to a few, they are always lost for words....... Excellent article. -
Albatross at 07:09 AM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
kmpollard @3, "Those warmists have cooked the data again." The irony is that it is they (the "skeptics" and those who deny AGW) who are cooking the data. -
kmpollard at 06:38 AM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
I can just hear the deniers discussing Fig. 1.”If the global temperature has gone down over so many periods in the last 40 years, how can it be warming? Those warmists have cooked the data again.” -
Bob Lacatena at 06:16 AM on 5 November 2011Climate's changed before
292, lancelot, Didn't notice Appinsys in your list. The site is a travesty. You will get nothing but confusion and misinformation there. -
cRR Kampen at 05:42 AM on 5 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Tom and Logicman, the problem with that line is given by the actual struggle for interpretion of evidence. In history and practice oratory always helps to bring certain interpretations of evidence (like that of rising mercury in certain instruments across the globe) across. Actually this is only not true for logic and mathematics, although even there certain 'retorical rules' for proofs exist. The elegant proof convinces even more: often by giving deeper insight. The line is self-defeating. I think the problem can be avoided by not viewing science as a contest at all, for starters. But I don't know how such a fine oneliner could be destilled from this.. -
dana1981 at 05:34 AM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Thanks Alexandre, the point of this post was really to highlight that Figure 1. I should note that we had to include the last two BEST incomplete months (April and May 2010) in the "skeptic" version in order to get a cooling trend (without them all recent trends are positive), but we removed the incomplete points in the "realist" version, since realists would not use incomplete data. Otherwise the data in the "skeptic" and "realist" versions are identical. Hat-tip to Sphaerica again for coming up with the idea. All I did was animate it a bit. -
Alexandre at 05:20 AM on 5 November 2011Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Figure 1 is a great graph that speaks for itself. It hasn't warmed since... the last recent temp record. -
Climate's changed before
lancelot - I would also recommend The Discovery of Global Warming for an overview of the topic, not requiring a technical background. And in looking at the 'series of tubes', the interweb, I would suggest discounting any sites with obvious political or ad hominem ranting. Such as, for example, "Appinsys". The ability for anyone to publish to the web means that quality checking is ever more important.
Prev 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 Next
