|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 25, 2012 1:52:13 GMT
I hope they didn't spend too much money on this. All they would have had to do is call me and I could have told them 2012 summer wasn't even in the running verses 1936.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 26, 2012 2:23:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 26, 2012 2:38:35 GMT
trbixler: The trend has been flat for 16 years. I don't understand why that is so controversial. That is what the data shows, folks have to realize that while the data may have errors, this is the data that we have.
Have you figured why this flat period is alarming to so many?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 26, 2012 3:13:06 GMT
Something about agenda driven cash flow. Think of the Grants! Think of the EPA finding that CO2 is a pollutant based on hockey sticks. Think of the loss of control via regulation. Think of your farm not as government lever but for you to produce food. It is fundamental to the political agenda of fear to keep AGW alive. This is a multi trillion dollar rat hole of waste based on YAD06. trbixler: The trend has been flat for 16 years. I don't understand why that is so controversial. That is what the data shows, folks have to realize that while the data may have errors, this is the data that we have. Have you figured why this flat period is alarming to so many?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 26, 2012 4:02:20 GMT
From the link. Notice also that the correlation factor R of the data with a linear trend is anyway very poor – just 0.12, demonstrating just how large the non-random monthly variations exist in the data. And therein lies the elephant in the room.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 26, 2012 4:52:36 GMT
Something about agenda driven cash flow. Think of the Grants! Think of the EPA finding that CO2 is a pollutant based on hockey sticks. Think of the loss of control via regulation. Think of your farm not as government lever but for you to produce food. It is fundamental to the political agenda of fear to keep AGW alive. This is a multi trillion dollar rat hole of waste based on YAD06. trbixler: The trend has been flat for 16 years. I don't understand why that is so controversial. That is what the data shows, folks have to realize that while the data may have errors, this is the data that we have. Have you figured why this flat period is alarming to so many? So basically, it is a money rat hole. And the rats in the hole have blinders on, won't face reality. And they are being fed a steady stream of dollars to sit and do nothing productive. This has to have a strong government funding source, as no private investment firm would continue to waste dollars with such a poor outcome.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 26, 2012 7:10:29 GMT
Blinders on: Blinders off (straight line indicates what would have happened if the "global warming" trend had been replaced by a flat trend in 1998).
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 26, 2012 7:46:40 GMT
Blinders on: Blinders off (straight line indicates what would have happened if the "global warming" trend had been replaced by a flat trend in 1998). Yes. But you never discuss the issue of massaged/conjured data. That seems like denial. Do you really think a group of people who have so many personal stakes in warming are capable of independantly making adjustments when people who do not have stakes in the warming process are excluded from the adjustment process?? Quite clearly the team working with the data are pre picked by warmists Quite clearly Phil Jones was talking about rigging the peer review process and quite clearly you think he should have kept his job.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 26, 2012 13:48:08 GMT
Steve: Thank you for the later picture. Now you are understanding trend analysis.
Leading indicators in an economic analysis are pretty good at predicting future activity. Not perfect, but pretty good.
The Politicians kept telling everyone in 2007 and 2008 that the economy was doing great. Just look at the trends. All positive.
Then we had the realists who were showing that the trend had changed dramatically, and an economic cliff was very close.
We know who was correct now don't we?
The same has to be said about temperatures. The long term trend is up, so everything is good. The short term trend is flat, so get prepared for a cooler climate.
The Met office used trends in predicting for the Brits that salt trucks etc would not be needed in the future. That resulted in govts not stock piling grit as you folks call it. How did that turn out for you?
One has to be a realist in this world.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 26, 2012 20:28:39 GMT
Steve: Thank you for the later picture. Now you are understanding trend analysis. Leading indicators in an economic analysis are pretty good at predicting future activity. Not perfect, but pretty good. The Politicians kept telling everyone in 2007 and 2008 that the economy was doing great. Just look at the trends. All positive. Then we had the realists who were showing that the trend had changed dramatically, and an economic cliff was very close. We know who was correct now don't we? The same has to be said about temperatures. The long term trend is up, so everything is good. The short term trend is flat, so get prepared for a cooler climate. The Met office used trends in predicting for the Brits that salt trucks etc would not be needed in the future. That resulted in govts not stock piling grit as you folks call it. How did that turn out for you? One has to be a realist in this world. Thats right Sigurdur! You and I are in the business of more closely examining what is going on as opposed to looking at long term trends to tell us. I have a post the Global Warming Temperature's thread that examines trends in detail. Its a long post but in short here is a graph of longterm 60 year trends computed over a hundred and sixty years. There is a lot more on this in the other thread but notice how the trends plot. The peak in the plot of annual overlapping 60 year trends is way past the temperature max of 1944 and is delayed to 1964. So the trends did not start declining until 20 years after it actually started cooling. As long as the warmest temperatures are in the front half of the snake there is going to be a delay. Thats the nature of linear trends they are terrible for telling you when change has occurred. This is why Judith Curry is calling on folks to raise the level of their game. The public at large is made up of realists and they know from experience that the distant past might tell you about the future but not when in the future. I suppose you need to be an academic to have missed that lesson.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 31, 2012 0:58:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 31, 2012 1:55:17 GMT
One thing that has to be remembered. GPS, even with multiple satillites is accurate to within a few inches.
To get precission accuracy, as used in farming, you have to have a tower planted firmly in one spot.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 2, 2012 18:00:57 GMT
Radiant, <i>Yes. But you never discuss the issue of massaged/conjured data. That seems like denial.</i> What do you mean I never discuss the allegation of massaged/conjured data. I discuss it all the time. The suggestion that the analysis of the data is biased by the scientists desires has been disproven by the current transparency and availability of the data. It's nonsense, so I deny it
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 2, 2012 18:13:51 GMT
Steve: Thank you for the later picture. Now you are understanding trend analysis. Leading indicators in an economic analysis are pretty good at predicting future activity. Not perfect, but pretty good. The Politicians kept telling everyone in 2007 and 2008 that the economy was doing great. Just look at the trends. All positive. Then we had the realists who were showing that the trend had changed dramatically, and an economic cliff was very close. We know who was correct now don't we? The same has to be said about temperatures. The long term trend is up, so everything is good. The short term trend is flat, so get prepared for a cooler climate. The Met office used trends in predicting for the Brits that salt trucks etc would not be needed in the future. That resulted in govts not stock piling grit as you folks call it. How did that turn out for you? One has to be a realist in this world. Couple of issues there. First, I don't trust politicians or economic models because the honest politician gets voted out when he calls it how he sees it leaving only the dishonest politician willing to cut taxes, spending and regulation and pretending all is hunky dory behind. Economic models will always go wrong because people can react to economic models and take advantage of their flaws (eg. increasing their borrowing more than anyone could imagine because credit is cheap). Physics, though, doesn't care for people's perceptions and expectations. Basically extra CO2 will cause warming unless something else prevents it (such as volcanic aerosols, pollution, low solar activity, temporary natural variability) cos the physics says it will. So it was warming, it is still warming and it will warm. Second, the snow issues in the UK relate more to businesses cutting cost with unrealistic expections. The night Heathrow got closed down I was flying into Gatwick and travelling with colleagues who were taking another flight at the same time to Heathrow. My flight was a bit delayed, but fine. My colleagues were stuck for 2 days. I drove back via the M25 passing very close to Heathrow - there wasn't much snow on the roads. Basically at the time Heathrow were owned by a Spanish company, Ferrovial, who don't understand snow.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 2, 2012 21:15:14 GMT
Radiant, <i>Yes. But you never discuss the issue of massaged/conjured data. That seems like denial.</i> What do you mean I never discuss the allegation of massaged/conjured data. I discuss it all the time. The suggestion that the analysis of the data is biased by the scientists desires has been disproven by the current transparency and availability of the data. It's nonsense, so I deny it I am not sure what you are saying here. Several times it seems to be true that in the past prominant climate scientists have massaged the data to hide things like the mwp and the little ice age or to hide the 1930's warming. Are you saying there is no truth in that at all?
|
|