Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Global warming has become political
infortunately for some reason........the issue of Global Warming is actually not of science but of politics. There are conservatives that dislike Gore so much that they go the extra mile to dispute global warming. There are others that do not care about nature, that nature is there to be reap. If you cannot make money out of the earth......what good is it?
But it is really, logical speaking, not so difficult to see that all of those million of cars that commutters use spewing toxic fumes affecting the enviroment. Sometimes that evades these ultra conservatives

0 Replies

Goddammit, stop using 1997-8 as a benchmark. Every time you do it it just shows you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. The largest single event that affects WEATHER, not CLIMATE, is the el Nino/Southern Oscillation (also known by the acronym ENSO). When there is an el Nino in the Pacific, it affects the weather from Indonesia through most of the Americas (here largely by causing the jet stream to shift). Amongst climatologists there is a well-known correlation between spikes in global mean temperature over the course of months, sometimes up to nearly a year, and an el Nino event. 1997-98 was the strongest el Nino on record, over the hundred and fifty years or so that relatively accurate records have been kept. It was followed the next year by la Nina, which is a huge cold water upwelling over vast areas of the Pacific, depressing mean temperature (look at the graphs of mean temperature and you'll see the high spike followed by the low spike.) Throw out the spikes, which are transitory and notice the steady upward trend of global temps. Look at the pre-1997 curve. Compare it to the post-97 curve. Upward, ever upward.

Incidentally, 1997 was on track, for most of the year, according to most observers, to be the warmest year on record. But the end couple of months saw a confirmed la Nina, and okie et al have been making much of a drop in mean temp. in November. Well, duh. It's a hell of a lot of cool water coming up. The next couple months are most probably going to be below the ongoing mean temp as a result, before temps revert to the mean (which mean is still creeping up). But that too shall pass. It's only weather. Not climate. (Though research does indicate that the deep ocean has been warming since the 90s in line with the Global Climate Model simulations. Which speculatively might drive more frequent, more intense el Ninos (see again 87-98). Get enough such anthropogenically-induced heat transfer cycles changing and you see climate change in action.

Climate proxy data for the past show that el Nino/la Nina occurrences have been going on for millenia, come ice age come interglacial. Climate changes around them. As it seems to be doing today.

So just cut it out. Using 1997-8 as a standard data point the way you do is illegitimate.

0 Replies

(that doesn't refer to you, snakes, rather it's a bone of contention with ican and okie).

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

ican - Until you undersatand the significance of what you post, don't post it. I have asked several times now why you seem to revolve around global average temp, I don't believe you have answered.

Care to give me the courtesy?

T
K
O

I have previously answered this question of yours.

The following are all global, regional and local climate variables:
temperature (highest, lowest, average, and their rate of change);
atmospheric pressure;
humidity;
dew point;
wind intensities, altitudes, directions;
cloud layers and heights;
precipitation.

I've asked: for which of these do you think humans are the direct partial or direct primary causers of change? You have not answered that question.

Based on the IPCC's reports it appears to me that they think temperature is the climate variable for which humans are thought to probably be the direct causers of change. Since the average global monthly and average global yearly temperatures are most easily accessible to me --
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
-- and because the monthly or yearly rates of change are the most easily computable by me from them, I focus on average global temperature. I focus on yearly average global temperatures and rates of change, because the yearly ones take the least posting space.

Why did you ask?

What variables do you prefer? Why?

Do you prefer regional or local more than global variables? If so, why?

0 Replies

username wrote:

Goddammit, stop using 1997-8 as a benchmark. Every time you do it it just shows you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. The largest single event that affects WEATHER, not CLIMATE, is the el Nino/Southern Oscillation (also known by the acronym ENSO).
...
(Though research does indicate that the deep ocean has been warming since the 90s in line with the Global Climate Model simulations. Which speculatively might drive more frequent, more intense el Ninos (see again 87-98). Get enough such anthropogenically-induced heat transfer cycles changing and you see climate change in action.

Climate proxy data for the past show that el Nino/la Nina occurrences have been going on for millenia, come ice age come interglacial. Climate changes around them. As it seems to be doing today.

So just cut it out. Using 1997-8 as a standard data point the way you do is illegitimate.

I disagree, Goddammit! I will not cut it out! I will continue to use that data and/or logic that I think to be most relevant to who or what is causing climate change.

It would be better, if you were to abandon your illogical and irrelevant complaints about what I choose to post, and instead choose only to post the data or logic that you think refutes what I post. Start by explaining what you think is the actual difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE.

In this post you appear to recognize that temperature change causes changes to the ENSO. Do you not recognize that we are debating here whether or not the variable of climate that most directly affects climate and is most directly affected by human activity, is temperature?

Based on my data --
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
-- the years 1878, 1911, 1998, and 2007 are years of the more significant local maximum or local minimum average global temperatures during the period 1850 - 2007.

0 Replies

Corrections

ican711nm wrote:

Yes, the world's climate has been changing.
...
From 1878 to 1911 the average global temperature decreased 1.087F at the average rate of 0.329F per year.

From 1911 to 1998 it increased 2.029F at the average rate of 0.0233F per year.

From 1998 to 2007 it decreased 0.258F at the average rate of 0.0287F per year.

The two average temperature decreasing trends occurred at a greater rates than did the one increasing trend during the period 1878 thru 2007.

Did humans cause that? If so, how did humans cause that?

0 Replies

Quote:

Based on my data --
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
-- the years 1878, 1911, 1998, and 2007 are years of the more significant local maximum or local minimum average global temperatures during the period 1850 - 2007.

That is precisely why it is illegitimate to use those numbers.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
Based on my data --
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
-- the years 1878, 1911, 1998, and 2007 are years of the more significant local maximum or local minimum average global temperatures during the period 1850 - 2007.

That is precisely why it is illegitimate to use those numbers.

What "is precisely why it is illegitimate to use those numbers"?

0 Replies

In Jan 2000, the DOW was at 11908. In Jan 2008 the DOW has been at 11,502. That would mean the DOW has trended down 45.11 points per year since 2000 and is on a downward trend.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

In Jan 2000, the DOW was at 11908. In Jan 2008 the DOW has been at 11,502. That would mean the DOW has trended down 45.11 points per year since 2000 and is on a downward trend.

I LOVE it.

That is the EXACT same logic they are using.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:
Quote:
Based on my data --
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
-- the years 1878, 1911, 1998, and 2007 are years of the more significant local maximum or local minimum average global temperatures during the period 1850 - 2007.

That is precisely why it is illegitimate to use those numbers.

What "is precisely why it is illegitimate to use those numbers"?

You can't show trends by picking single numbers out of a progression of data. To do so is illegitimate as science since you have done nothing to check if the numbers are outliers or inaccurate data. Statistically, there are methods to eliminate the likelihood of those numbers being outliers.

http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/Business-stat/otherapplets/ForecaSmo.htm

0 Replies

parados wrote:

In Jan 2000, the DOW was at 11908. In Jan 2008 the DOW has been at 11,502. That would mean the DOW has trended down 45.11 points per year since 2000 and is on a downward trend.

Logically, that is an invalid comparison!

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF A LOGICALLY VALID COMPARISON

In 1878, the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE was 10,000.

In 1911, the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE was 9,100. [-30x33=-990]

In 1998, the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE was 10,840. [+20x87=+1740]

In 2007, the XYZ YEARLY average was 10,615. [-25x9=-225]

In 1878 to 1911, the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE decreased at an AVERAGE rate of 30 per year.

In 1911-1998 the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE increased at an AVERAGE rate of 20 per year.

In 1998-2007, the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE decreased at an AVERAGE rate of 25 per year.

The XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE decreased at greater yearly AVERAGE rates in 1878-1911 and in 1998-2007 than the yearly AVERAGE rate it increased 1911-1998.

So what's your problem?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
Quote:
Based on my data --
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
-- the years 1878, 1911, 1998, and 2007 are years of the more significant local maximum or local minimum average global temperatures during the period 1850 - 2007.

That is precisely why it is illegitimate to use those numbers.

What "is precisely why it is illegitimate to use those numbers"?

You can't show trends by picking single numbers out of a progression of data. To do so is illegitimate as science since you have done nothing to check if the numbers are outliers or inaccurate data. Statistically, there are methods to eliminate the likelihood of those numbers being outliers.

http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/Business-stat/otherapplets/ForecaSmo.htm

I did not pick "single numbers". I picked yearly averages of 12 monthly averages, and then compared the rates of change of those yearly averages over three different yearly periods.

See:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

Is it the selection criteria you dislike most, or is it the conclusion you dislike most?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:
In Jan 2000, the DOW was at 11908. In Jan 2008 the DOW has been at 11,502. That would mean the DOW has trended down 45.11 points per year since 2000 and is on a downward trend.

Logically, that is an invalid comparison!

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF A LOGICALLY VALID COMPARISON

In 1878, the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE was 10,000.

In 1911, the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE was 9,100. [-30x33=-990]

In 1998, the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE was 10,840. [+20x87=+1740]

In 2007, the XYZ YEARLY average was 10,615. [-25x9=-225]

In 1878 to 1911, the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE decreased at an AVERAGE rate of 30 per year.

In 1911-1998 the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE increased at an AVERAGE rate of 20 per year.

In 1998-2007, the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE decreased at an AVERAGE rate of 25 per year.

The XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE decreased at greater yearly AVERAGE rates in 1878-1911 and in 1998-2007 than the yearly AVERAGE rate it increased 1911-1998.

So what's your problem?

You just used the same type of comparison I did which you said was invalid. You used one data point and compared it to another data point. That is the exact same thing I did.

How you got your datapoints is irrelevent. I could pull out 1997 and 2006 and show the exact opposite of your comparison and it would have the same validity (none) as yours does.
You haven't shown any trends, you have only compared 2 data points.

Lets say 1998 was 15.58 degrees. and 2008 is 15.5 degrees.
Now lets say that 1999 was 15 degrees, 2000 is 15.05 degree, 2002 - 15.15, 2003 - 15.2, 2004 -15.25, 2005 - 15.3, 2006 - 15.35, 2007, 15.4.
Your argument is that the trend from 1998-2008 is down. But it's quite obvious the trend from 1999-2008 is UP. You have made an illegitimate argument by pulling out 2 data points and acting as if you can show trends with just those 2. Your way is NOT a logical comparison. It is BS. It is completely against science and math. Science and Math that ARE logical say your way is NOT.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

I did not pick "single numbers". I picked yearly averages of 12 monthly averages, and then compared the rates of change of those yearly averages over three different yearly periods.

See:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

Is it the selection criteria you dislike most, or is it the conclusion you dislike most?

It is the use of single data points to show trends that is what is wrong. I could care less about the conclusion since even if I liked the conclusion the methodology would still be fatally flawed.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
In Jan 2000, the DOW was at 11908. In Jan 2008 the DOW has been at 11,502. That would mean the DOW has trended down 45.11 points per year since 2000 and is on a downward trend.

Logically, that is an invalid comparison!

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF A LOGICALLY VALID COMPARISON

In 1878, the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE was 10,000.

In 1911, the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE was 9,100. [-30x33=-990]

In 1998, the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE was 10,840. [+20x87=+1740]

In 2007, the XYZ YEARLY average was 10,615. [-25x9=-225]

In 1878 to 1911, the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE decreased at an AVERAGE rate of 30 per year.

In 1911-1998 the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE increased at an AVERAGE rate of 20 per year.

In 1998-2007, the XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE decreased at an AVERAGE rate of 25 per year.

The XYZ YEARLY AVERAGE decreased at greater yearly AVERAGE rates in 1878-1911 and in 1998-2007 than the yearly AVERAGE rate it increased 1911-1998.

So what's your problem?

You just used the same type of comparison I did which you said was invalid. You used one data point and compared it to another data point. That is the exact same thing I did.

How you got your datapoints is irrelevent. I could pull out 1997 and 2006 and show the exact opposite of your comparison and it would have the same validity (none) as yours does.
You haven't shown any trends, you have only compared 2 data points.

Lets say 1998 was 15.58 degrees. and 2008 is 15.5 degrees.
Now lets say that 1999 was 15 degrees, 2000 is 15.05 degree, 2002 - 15.15, 2003 - 15.2, 2004 -15.25, 2005 - 15.3, 2006 - 15.35, 2007, 15.4.
Your argument is that the trend from 1998-2008 is down. But it's quite obvious the trend from 1999-2008 is UP. You have made an illegitimate argument by pulling out 2 data points and acting as if you can show trends with just those 2. Your way is NOT a logical comparison. It is BS. It is completely against science and math. Science and Math that ARE logical say your way is NOT.

No! My data points, as you call them, were derived from 129 data points that were each derived from 12 monthly data points, that were themselves each derived from 28, 29, 30 or 31 daily data points.

Try as you may, you cannot validly rebut my data and the conclusions I derived from it.

Try another hypothesis.

Please see:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
for all my data points.

0 Replies

Great. Thanks a lot. Four thousand numbers. No column headers. No explanation of what any of the numbers are, or what they purport to measure, except a suposition that twenty five or so are probably measures for a given year. But of what is never stated. Up to your usual standard, ican. Or is that down to your usual standard.

0 Replies

ican says: "the years 1878, 1911, 1998, and 2007 are years of the more significant local maximum or local minimum average global temperatures", which sure as hell sounds to me almost like a textbook definition of a statistical outlier, which is usally an indication of either measurement error or something atypical happening to cause that value. When you fit curves or look at trends you don't use the aberrant values. Which is why the climatologists usually use five-year rolling averages, because it compensates for non-repeatable spikes and dips. Which is why your two data points (and that is what they actually are, in spite of being made up of many separate readings) are an invalid way to determine change. You know there are such things as cold winters and warm winters. You can't compare two winters from any time period in the last two centuries and expect to learn anything valid about any change. Similarly if you pick any two years, particularly if you are choosing local maxima and minima. Your statistics seem to be as weak as your gas theory.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

No! My data points, as you call them, were derived from 129 data points that were each derived from 12 monthly data points, that were themselves each derived from 28, 29, 30 or 31 daily data points.

Try as you may, you cannot validly rebut my data and the conclusions I derived from it.

Try another hypothesis.

Please see:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
for all my data points.

Hmm.. you only used that many data points?
My DOW data points used thousands of stocks sold per second over several days. (That would be the average of millions of data points.) My data points are created by MORE readings than yours but somehow you think my data points are not valid?

You don't know what the hell you are talking about.

0 Replies

username wrote:

Great. Thanks a lot. Four thousand numbers. No column headers. No explanation of what any of the numbers are, or what they purport to measure, except a suposition that twenty five or so are probably measures for a given year. But of what is never stated. Up to your usual standard, ican. Or is that down to your usual standard.

The link shows the website. Most of us don't have any difficulty tracking back to the homepage of the website with that kind of information, but here ya go:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know