|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 23, 2009 21:50:48 GMT
I guess it's just a continuation of a series, a shifting along a spectrum of cahnges to our world that is happening almost everywhere. Russia seems to be immunised against it but I think that might be simply they've got a more naked control of things there.
But I think the tide is slowly ebbing. The waves of agw aren't hitting the beach as hard & there seems more people willing to talk about it all now instead of dismissing the whole idea as crazy & expressing the automatic assumption that 'all those scientists must be right.'
A number of people I talk to have shifted their stance recently - I don't think anything I've tried to point out has done it except perhaps my ongoing reminders to look at & remember the weather around them.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 24, 2009 7:21:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jan 24, 2009 13:40:10 GMT
More skeptics in the wire. It looks like CNN is leading the revolution. Reynolds Wolf is questioning agw. This morning CNN reported a bunch of ice shelfs breaking off of Antartica and the "scientists" (cough, cough) blamed it on agw. Reynolds Wolf commeted on how big the earth was and how small in comparisons the Ice breaking off was, and noted that it has been warmer in the past and cooler in the past. This is real heresey to agw'rs. What is the world comming to. Not even FOX dares to question agw to this degree (particularly that yokel O'Rielly).
The truth will out. And it isn't out there somewhere it is here and now.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 24, 2009 14:30:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 24, 2009 16:39:39 GMT
It's irrelevant.
The tide has turned. Why not take your last starting point to the end of the last ice age, has it warmed since then? Absolutely!
Apply this to the financials. Has the DJIA increased since 1900? Yes. But if you entered the market in 2000 and stayed it, the trend has been negative. When will this trend end and reverse? No one knows.
So I take it your answer is yes. You do deny that the current trend is downward.
My question following and perhaps more important was:
What has caused this trend, what will cause it to reverse, and when will it reverse?
Will the current trend continue and wipe out any temperature increase over the last century? Time will tell....
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 24, 2009 16:43:06 GMT
Also, why didn't you pick 1998 as your start point?
Because it would have shown a negative trend since that date perhaps?
Another inconvenient truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 24, 2009 19:19:40 GMT
Why did you pick 1998 as your start point? Because it would have shown a positive trend if you started in either 1997 or 1999 perhaps?
Another inconvenient truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 24, 2009 19:51:43 GMT
Why did you pick 1998 as your start point? Because it would have shown a positive trend if you started in either 1997 or 1999 perhaps? Another inconvenient truth. All indicators show a cooling trend. One can deny it until it has run a majority of the 30 year cycle but the amount of cooling already is significant. Trend analysis shows in all data sets a cooling trend now for 11 years. 5 or longer chunks don't show it yet. . . .explaining why Jim Hansen chose that way of looking at it but he is hanging by a thread with both the 5 and 6 year chunk analysis going negative if 2009 isn't warmer than 2008 (Hadcrut) And the 5 year index will fall negative if 2009 isn't warmer than 2007 which started out in an El Nino condition. Thats why Hansen has hung his hat on a 2009 El Nino. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 25, 2009 3:01:14 GMT
All indicators show a cooling trend. One can deny it until it has run a majority of the 30 year cycle but the amount of cooling already is significant. Trend analysis shows in all data sets a cooling trend now for 11 years. Trend analysis also shows in all datasets a warming trend now for 10 years and 12 years. Why is your choice of 11 years any more relevant than 10 years or 12 years? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 25, 2009 4:42:54 GMT
All indicators show a cooling trend. One can deny it until it has run a majority of the 30 year cycle but the amount of cooling already is significant. Trend analysis shows in all data sets a cooling trend now for 11 years. Trend analysis also shows in all datasets a warming trend now for 10 years and 12 years. Why is your choice of 11 years any more relevant than 10 years or 12 years? Thats simple to explain. I didn't use 12 because what we are looking for is a change in trend and nobody but nobody has suggested it occurred more than 11 years ago. I didn't use 10 or 9 because the first two years would have been unusually cold years. They are outliers or big noise. It seems rather silly to use those as starting points to spoil the trend. Its also a little questionable using 11 years but really its only a question of that or using 8 or 7 years. So all in all of the possible 10 multiple year trends ending in 2008 you might logically use, 8 of them produce a negative trend line. So on that note it wouldn't make sense using a minority starting point unless you are just trying to play devil's advocate. Now one can produce a negative trend from 1990 to 1996 or shorter but that one comes with a ready explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 25, 2009 5:21:07 GMT
Trend analysis also shows in all datasets a warming trend now for 10 years and 12 years. Why is your choice of 11 years any more relevant than 10 years or 12 years? Thats simple to explain. I didn't use 12 because what we are looking for is a change in trend and nobody but nobody has suggested it occurred more than 11 years ago. I didn't use 10 or 9 because the first two years would have been unusually cold years. They are outliers or big noise. It seems rather silly to use those as starting points to spoil the trend. Its also a little questionable using 11 years but really its only a question of that or using 8 or 7 years. So all in all of the possible 10 multiple year trends ending in 2008 you might logically use, 8 of them produce a negative trend line. So on that note it wouldn't make sense using a minority starting point unless you are just trying to play devil's advocate. Now one can produce a negative trend from 1990 to 1996 or shorter but that one comes with a ready explanation. We don't give a rats behind about 1999-2008 because temperatures had already exceeded 1999 in previous years! Of course there will show a warming to 2008. DUH!!! 1998 is not a good year either because it was an outlier (except for GIStemp of course). We do know that in 2001/2002 temperatures reached that prior to 1998 El Nino. However, if warmologists want to use 1998 as the starting point, we can say there has been no global warming since 1998, except GIStemp shows a positive trend (I didn't ferret out the peaks). Both are statistically meaningless other than to say since 1998 the earth has not gotten warmer than 1998! This is one reason why using linear regression to assess non linear data is not a good idea in most cases. In can however be broken down in segments to illustrate a change in the long term trend. If I can find it in my archives, I'll post as an example.  No, what we are most interested in is why temperatures began stalling in 2001, certainly 2002. Of note is the tight clustering of the data versus those prior to 1998. No sane objective person can look at the data without noticing this. Something has changed.  |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 25, 2009 17:32:10 GMT
Thats simple to explain. I didn't use 12 because what we are looking for is a change in trend and nobody but nobody has suggested it occurred more than 11 years ago. Yes you are looking for a change in trend and so you pick a year to find what you are looking for. If you had been looking for a continuation of trend you could have picked 10 or 12 years. This only demonstrates the power of cherrypicking start points. Yet you pick 11 years which starts in an unusually warm year! |
|
ew3
New Member
Posts: 11 
|
Post by ew3 on Jan 25, 2009 17:58:37 GMT
Anytime I see a linear trend line, no matter what the time period, I get suspicious. It tends to hide a lot of informatioin and over simplifies things. (must be the physics major in me)
After lurking here for a while, I've been watch my local weather "stations" within 15 miles of where I live (via weatherunderground). There is just no way you could determine an average temperature with in that range. Chaos Theory indeed. Depending on winds, overall temperature we can have only 2 degrees difference between 20 stations, but on a still very cold night the difference can be 15 degrees (F).
Based on this it really troubles me when I see a chart that temperature gradients of < 2 or even < 1 degree.
And thanks to all, have learned a great deal from your posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 25, 2009 18:02:22 GMT
socold
As usual arguing for a possible minor temperature increase in a flat or declining trend when the CO2 is rising and AGW just has not even come close to predicting what is happening. AGW 'theory' suggests that the temperature should be soaring like a hockey stick. Why has it not done so? Hansen and Mann spend all of there efforts making predictions that are proven wrong. Unfortunately it takes years of effort to figure out what statistical lies have been told. The devil is in the details of program and data.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 25, 2009 21:16:21 GMT
socold As usual arguing for a possible minor temperature increase in a flat or declining trend when the CO2 is rising and AGW just has not even come close to predicting what is happening.] The next 10 years of temperature could continue that trend, in which case claims today that we are now in cooling are obviously premature. 2002-2003 had the strongest el nino of the 21st century. 2007-2008 had a strong la nina. We also have fallen into a solar minimum in that period. Given that, the trend since 2003 does not warrant claims that the decadal warming has ended. But it doesn't and the easiest way to demonstrate that is to show model output in which you can find numerous examples of declining sub-decadal trends within an otherwise decadal warming: img263.imageshack.us/img263/3170/ar4figure105a2ra7.pngAGW is a prediction of decadal trend. Overall rise might take place in fits and starts, not smoothly upwards. |
|
