parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2012 03:42 pm
@gungasnake,
Hadcrut 4 numbers
Code:2010 0.53 (0.45 to 0.63)
2009 0.49 (0.39 to 0.59)
2008 0.38 (0.30 to 0.47)
2007 0.48 (0.39 to 0.57)
2006 0.49 (0.40 to 0.58)
2005 0.53 (0.44 to 0.63)
2004 0.44 (0.35 to 0.53)
2003 0.49 (0.41 to 0.59)
2002 0.49 (0.40 to 0.58)
2001 0.43 (0.35 to 0.52)
2000 0.29 (0.20 to 0.38)
1999 0.30 (0.21 to 0.39)
1998 0.52 (0.44 to 0.61)
1997 0.39 (0.31 to 0.48)
1996 0.18 (0.09 to 0.26)

I find it interesting that anyone can look at these numbers and claim there is no trend line. What I find even more interesting is the silly chart that gunga posted which has nothing to do with these numbers


Just in case anyone wonders about how selective they were in the numbers they misrepresent, here is the 9 years. Now we REALLY see a trend.

Code:1995 0.32 (0.24 to 0.41)
1994 0.20 (0.12 to 0.29)
1993 0.14 (0.06 to 0.23)
1992 0.10 (0.02 to 0.19)
1991 0.25 (0.17 to 0.34)
1990 0.29 (0.21 to 0.37)
1989 0.12 (0.04 to 0.20)
1988 0.20 (0.12 to 0.28)
1987 0.19 (0.10 to 0.27)
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2012 08:47 pm
@gungasnake,
You maybe right--these results are not the result of 'mining.' Proper analysis does not result in skewed results. This is more of a 'dredging' procedure--an operation where you use data skewed to support an already predetermined conclusion. Such as there is no global warming 'in the past 15 years'

Rap
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2012 09:24 pm
I've gone through twenty or so of the hits which turn up on 'hadcrut' and the only place I've seen anybody trying to claim the data says anything other than no warming in the past 15 years is on A2K.
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2012 01:43 am
That's largely because when you google it you get the same usual suspects, the denialist blogocracy, all trading the same meme back and forth because someone, I would suspect Steve Mulloy,( the paid PR hack who made his chops as a bought and paid for subsidiary of Big Tobacco claiming smoking and lung cancer were unrelated), who always uses HADCRUT data, first did his usual hack job on their output, and then all the other guys kept crossposting it. It was just another case of a denialist attempt to make a tempest in a teapot. Now there's a reason Mulloy pretty much only uses HADCRUT only uses HADCRUT. Of the three globall temperature systems, they always show the least amount of warming. This has long been known to be because they used the fewest Arctic temp readings, they were seriously underrepresented there. That is where the largest amount of warming has gone on, just as climate models suggested would happen They knew they had to do something about it, the scientific climate community knew it, and in the last couple months they said they are updating their analysis to reflect it. Which doesn't retrofit it to the older data. AND when you look at the other two major climate analyses GISS and NASA/NOAA, it's clear that temperatures have continued to increase.

Further, the statement that there has been no warming in the last fifteen years only sort-of works (it doesn't really if you actually look at the data) if you use 1998 as your base year, which the denialists always do. It doesn't work at all if you change the base year by just a year, to 1997 or 1999. Using them the trend is unequivocally up. It doesn't work either if you look at all the 90s from 1990 to 1999, and compare them with 2000 to 2011. This decade is clearly hotter. The two hottest years in recorded history are 2005 and 2010 (as you can see from looking closely at the HADCRUT graph). 2011's temp declined because it was a persistent la Nina year, which are cooler years. It was however the warmest la Nina year on record, so even cooler years are getting warmer. La Nina and elNino years mix in unpredicatbly with the majority of years with neither, and if you rolliing-average the years to smooth out the transient slight dips and peaks, the trend has been, and still continues to be, up. Just another wacked right-wing meme that it isn't.

From the US Government NASA/NOAA data:

Compare 1990-1999 with 2000 to 2011. Notice where the temps over multi years are higher. Compare el Nino year with each other. Compare la Nina years with each other. Compare 2005 and 2010 with 1998. Temperature has not take a vacation the last fifteen years. It's kept going up.



http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/hazards/2011/12/enso-global-temp-anomalies.png

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/hazards/2011/12/enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2012 07:33 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

I've gone through twenty or so of the hits which turn up on 'hadcrut' and the only place I've seen anybody trying to claim the data says anything other than no warming in the past 15 years is on A2K.

The funny thing is, your data doesn't use actual HadCRUT4 data for 2011. It makes it up because it hasn't been released yet.

Look.. Our made up data for 2011 is the same temperature as 1998. WOW!!!!! That proves what? That you idiots can make up data to prove your point?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2012 07:36 am
The real graphs:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/19/crus-new-hadcrut4-hiding-the-decline-yet-again-2/

Quote:
...Some of the change had to do with adding Arctic stations, but much of it has to do with adjustment....


Quote:
...And of course there’s this famous animation where the middle 20th century got cooler as if by magic. Watch how 1934 and 1998 change places as the warmest year of the last century. This is after GISS applied adjustments to a new data set (2004) compared with the one in 1999:


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/1998changesannotated1.gif?w=640

Quote:
Hansen, before he became an advocate for protest movements and getting himself arrested said:

Quote:
The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.


Source: Whither U.S. Climate?, By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999 http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

In the private sector, doing what we see above would cost you your job, or at worst (if it were stock data monitored by the SEC) land you in jail for securities fraud. But hey, this is climate science. No worries.....
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2012 07:39 am
1934 Of course was still in the deep part of the depression; WW-II had not started and middle class people did not own that many cars, and the use of freon was not widespread.

How the sun actually works (why we might reasonably expect it to heat up and cool off periodically:

http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2012 07:40 am
@gungasnake,
The US is NOT the globe gunga.

But then I don't expect you to understand simple concepts let alone complex ones.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2012 07:43 am
@gungasnake,
The sun does heat up and cool down. The problem is when the earth continues to heat up even though the sun is cooling down. That is what we are currently seeing.

By the way if you want to argue that ONE year is enough to prove warming or cooling and the US is representative of the globe then what do you have to say about this?


http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/09/11098960-us-sees-record-for-warmest-march-and-first-three-months-of-a-year?lite

This year is over 8 degrees above the 30 year average. Over 14,000 high temperature records shattered.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2012 09:52 am
Oh, geez, now he's off on the nutball electric universe stuff.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/22/2021 at 07:06:30