|
Post by dopeydog on Jan 17, 2009 12:48:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 17, 2009 18:52:16 GMT
Now I know what you're thinking...you're thinking that "well, 10 years isn't a trend". Ok, ASIDE from the fact that the global warming scientists actually started freaking out after only that long, you've got this teeny-weeny problem.
Ok - 10 years is a trend and the trend for the last 10 years is UP. Please read that again because for some bizarre reason this myth about 10 years cooling has got around and it's simply wrong.
A least Sq fit on each of the 4 main data sets shows all are warming over the past 10 years
Yes, YOU are the one with a theory that's only 10 years into testing...and it's failing miserably.
I haven't got a theory.
One only needs to look at the temperature record to see roughly what to expect. We're supposed to have cooling now and *gasp* we are!
No we're not. Read what I wrote above. The trend for the last 10 years is UP.
The PDO gives us roughly 25 years of warming then 25 years of cooling.
Just because it has before doesn't mean it will again.
And I'll repeat it once more for you. We are not cooling. I have just done a least sq fit on the UAH data and there is a rise of 0.12 deg over the past 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jan 17, 2009 18:56:34 GMT
glc writes " I have just done least sq fit on the UAH data and there is a rise of 0.12 deg over the past 10 years."
Did you do a linear or non-linear least squares fit to the data?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 17, 2009 19:05:03 GMT
Did you do a linear or non-linear least squares fit to the data?
Linear. I am not convinvced by polynomial fits as I can see no justification for them. Who, for example, has decided that climate follows a quadratic or quartic function. A linear fit is not perfect, but over a sufficiently long period of time it provides information regarding the underlying trend.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 17, 2009 20:02:49 GMT
Now I know what you're thinking...you're thinking that "well, 10 years isn't a trend". Ok, ASIDE from the fact that the global warming scientists actually started freaking out after only that long, you've got this teeny-weeny problem. Ok - 10 years is a trend and the trend for the last 10 years is UP. Please read that again because for some bizarre reason this myth about 10 years cooling has got around and it's simply wrong. A least Sq fit on each of the 4 main data sets shows all are warming over the past 10 yearsYes, YOU are the one with a theory that's only 10 years into testing...and it's failing miserably. I haven't got a theory. One only needs to look at the temperature record to see roughly what to expect. We're supposed to have cooling now and *gasp* we are! No we're not. Read what I wrote above. The trend for the last 10 years is UP. The PDO gives us roughly 25 years of warming then 25 years of cooling. Just because it has before doesn't mean it will again. And I'll repeat it once more for you. We are not cooling. I have just done a least sq fit on the UAH data and there is a rise of 0.12 deg over the past 10 years. Post your graphs with the starting and end dates ;D
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 17, 2009 20:30:21 GMT
David Archibald has made a prediction for thru May 2009. icecap.us/images/uploads/oftheMay2009UAHMSUGlobalTemperatureResult12thJanuary2009.pdfHe made some interesting observations about the temperature behavior patterns in the satellite data. Whether or not it holds true for this year, he still had the guts to let it all hang out. GLC, how does your reasoning hold any more weight than Archibald's? Yours is simply a WAG for completely unspecified reasons other than to attempt to prove the globe is still warming, which it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 17, 2009 21:01:34 GMT
One could even say there was no warming at all until 1998 in the satellite data: BTW, that is not a polynomial line. It is hodrick-prescott.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 18, 2009 1:13:38 GMT
GLC, how does your reasoning hold any more weight than Archibald's? Yours is simply a WAG for completely unspecified reasons other than to attempt to prove the globe is still warming, which it isn't.
Magellan
My reasoning isn't a WAG. I loaded the UAH MSU data into Excel and performed a simple LINEST calculation on the data between Jan 1999 and Dec 2008, i.e. 10 years. The result was a +ve trend over the 10 years of 0.012 per year or 0.12 per decade. If you think I've done anything wrong, please let me know.
I know why you think I might be wrong but I'm not and I'll leave you to work why for yourself. For now, though, let me just repeat what I said earlier.
ALL 4 data sets show a positive trend over the past 10 years, i.e. they all indicate warming.
Re: David Archibald
I'm sure he's a likeable chap but anything DA has written about climate is simply garbage. This latest piece of "analysis" is typical. He doesn't even try to validate his results using past data.
If you genuinely feel that Archibald is correct (or anywhere near correct) in his prediction then the best thing we can do is wait until June (when the May data is out) and then if you're still convinced that DA is some sort of climate guru I'll show evidence where he is clearly wrong.
I'm afraid that the likes of David Archibald gives climate scepticism a bad name.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jan 18, 2009 5:29:48 GMT
One only needs to look at the temperature record to see roughly what to expect. We're supposed to have cooling now and *gasp* we are! [\quote] No, the cooling we're supposed to have isn't since 1998, the cooling we're supposed to have began last year...and within all datasets there has been. Suddenly we had two consecutive La Ninas...strange behavior don't you think when they've been saying La Ninas might stop all together. I said 10 years on the time to test global warming because global warming says we should more or less go UP... but even during the end of the PDO's warming period, global warming failed to produce. The nature of the PDO is fairly chaotic so it's perfectly understandable that it wouldn't warm. The claimed correlation to CO2 is not. The CO2 rose by 2/3 as much during that 10 year period as it did over the previous 20 years! Where the heck is our substantial warming? LOL, you did it for 1999-2009, didn't you. That's actually 9 years (no wait, that is 10 years...there's been no warming for the last 11 years . The 1998 El Nino (which got everyone to make insane global warming projections) brings our slope down. Of course...THIS La Nina will drop us down even farther and then there won't be any measure you could use for 10 years. In fact if this year is remotely similar to last (which the La Nina seems to indicate) the trend line will be flat all the way back to 97 or 96.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 18, 2009 6:19:24 GMT
David Archibald has made a prediction for thru May 2009. icecap.us/images/uploads/oftheMay2009UAHMSUGlobalTemperatureResult12thJanuary2009.pdfHe made some interesting observations about the temperature behavior patterns in the satellite data. Whether or not it holds true for this year, he still had the guts to let it all hang out. GLC, how does your reasoning hold any more weight than Archibald's? Yours is simply a WAG for completely unspecified reasons other than to attempt to prove the globe is still warming, which it isn't. My analysis, which is better than Archibald's, is that the recovery will be similar to the one out of the 1999-2000 la nina period.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 18, 2009 7:34:38 GMT
David Archibald has made a prediction for thru May 2009. icecap.us/images/uploads/oftheMay2009UAHMSUGlobalTemperatureResult12thJanuary2009.pdfHe made some interesting observations about the temperature behavior patterns in the satellite data. Whether or not it holds true for this year, he still had the guts to let it all hang out. GLC, how does your reasoning hold any more weight than Archibald's? Yours is simply a WAG for completely unspecified reasons other than to attempt to prove the globe is still warming, which it isn't. My analysis, which is better than Archibald's, is that the recovery will be similar to the one out of the 1999-2000 la nina period. You can wave your arms til the cows come home. If the oceans don't recover, there isn't going to be any "recovery". That reminds me, this paper shows yet another failure of GCM's used by IPCC AR4. Quite damning when one realizes just what they are saying, that being GCM's underestimate solar forcing. www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/tung-zhou-camp08.pdf
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Jan 18, 2009 7:37:29 GMT
Can we put that in the dustbin with all yours and Hansens other failed predictions!
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jan 18, 2009 10:25:45 GMT
poitsplace
LOL, you did it for 1999-2009, didn't you. That's actually 9 years (no wait, that is 10 years...there's been no warming for the last 11 years .
.... and the penny drops. Yes there is a warming trend over 10 years; cooling over 11 years; but warming again over 12 years, A lesson, perhaps, in thinking before you post. You brought up the 10 years in a previous post - not me.
In fact if this year is remotely similar to last (which the La Nina seems to indicate) the trend line will be flat all the way back to 97 or 96.
I said in a previous post that you need to go back to the Pinatubo-affected years to find a significant warming trend in the UAH record. I've been making this same argument for some time.
Suddenly we had two consecutive La Ninas...strange behavior don't you think when they've been saying La Ninas might stop all together.
Well we had one long La Nina in 1998-2001 and it could be argued that this is similar in that the NINO index has not actually been positive since ealy 2007. You seem prepared to read rather a lot into the data from just one year.
Finally - can I make one important point which I've tried to make before on a number of occasions. Just because I don't see evidence of cooling it doesn't mean that I think it's warming.
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jan 18, 2009 12:39:01 GMT
One important point is that the El Nino's since 1998 have been getting weaker and shorter.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jan 18, 2009 13:17:03 GMT
glc writes "Finally - can I make one important point which I've tried to make before on a number of occasions. Just because I don't see evidence of cooling it doesn't mean that I think it's warming." Surely this is a key point. As I have noted before, the warmaholics will never agree that global temperatures are falling. It seems to me that out of all the possible scenarios as to what is going to happen the world temperatures, there are two possibilities that need to be considered. First that temperatures have gone through a shallow maximum and are now decreasing. Second, that temperatures are going through a point of inflexion, and will continue to increase. This latter scenario is the one that is suggested by Smith et al, and Keenleyside et al, though these differ as to when the recovery will start. If what is happening with temperatures is, in fact, non-linear, then any linear analysis will not show what is occurring. Temperatures could go through a maximum, and linear analysis will not detect this. I am not a statastician, so I can only do simple analysis. It seems to me that what is required is a combination of two disciplines working in cooperation. Someone who really knows where the global temperatures come from, and someone who knows how to analyse the data. A classic example of this sort of thing is Beebie and deBakie, who analysed medical data from WWII, resulting in the development of the MASH units used in Korea. Beebie was a brilliant statistician, and Michael deBakie went on the be one of the finest heart surgeons in the world.
|
|