Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic [W:1239:1469]

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Why won't you admit which progressive organization or blog you quoted?

That snippet of lines out of the last three paragraphs of that article, do not reflect the nature article accurately.

So... you are content with dishonesty...

hypocrite!

I'm going to keep track of this post to see if it survives the moderation process. From my personal experience, I'm pretty sure it will.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Free speech? It died when the political left decided their agenda was a loser unless people were forced into silence.

It's obviously an agenda that isn't working. In fact, the ranting right is never louder or more obnoxious than it is any time a dem is president. It's noisome and deafening. Believe me, it'd be nice if we adults were spared the carping, caviling and lying at max volume but we just have to put up with it and stand our ground.

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

It's obviously an agenda that isn't working. In fact, the ranting right has never been louder or more obnoxious than it has been during any time a dem is president. It's noisome and deafening.

While you are at it, You can admit you messed up a simple average, when in post #506, you said.

Again, your arithmetic is faulty. I just went throught the 1998 numbers at remss and get .66ºC average for that year. Ran it twice to make sure.

Speaking about the RSS data set.
0.5498
0.736
0.5852
0.8573
0.6672
0.5672
0.6052
0.5719
0.4938
0.4608
0.1953
0.311
______
6.6007 total divided by 12 =0.550058333
Or that the RSS and the UAH data sets both show some cooling since 1998.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

If you are able, please point out any errors in my calculations?

Done many times The same number of times you've pretended not to see them.

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Done many times and equal to your pretending not to have seen them.

Actually you need to cite a post #, because you have not!

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Actually you need to cite a post #, because you have not!

The trick is getting old, just as aryour continued repeating of both statistical manipulation and arithmetical errors.

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

I was looking at the GISS page a second ago, and noticed something in the SAT page,
Data.GISS: GISTEMP ? The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature

Q. What do I do if I need absolute SATs, not anomalies ?
A. In 99.9% of the cases you'll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F,
but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.

Wow, so the baseline they are measuring from can easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F,
that is 13.333 to 14.444 °C, a range of 1.1°C.
This means the error is greater than the total measured warming for the entire instrument record.

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

The trick is getting old, just as aryour continued repeating of both statistical manipulation and arithmetical errors.

And yet, you still cannot say which post number you pointed out an error in any of my calculations.
You made an averaging mistake, in post #506, I have made mistakes in the past, and admitted them.
For the simple stuff, like we are discussing here, if you can point out an error in my calculations,
I would be surprised, but would admit it and correct my error.

 

[Fenton]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

We really don't need to keep being reminded how deniers still cannot grasp the difference between weather and climate. It must be a deliberately self-inflicted sort of cognitive disconnect.

So no Global Warming ?

We know, your ilk had to change the narrative after Climate Gate, the debunking of the Hockey Stick and the pause.

Its " Climate Change " now. So how do we fix Climate Change ?

You turn the whole of the US into the basket case bankrupt plague blue state that is California.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

So no Global Warming ?

We know, your ilk had to change the narrative after Climate Gate, the debunking of the Hockey Stick and the pause.

Its " Climate Change " now. So how do we fix Climate Change ?

You turn the whole of the US into the basket case bankrupt plague blue state that is California.

Well, we can add complete ignorance of California to your basket. Just spouting the standard denial can't does not serve you well.

 

[Fenton]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Well, we can add complete ignorance of California to your basket. Just spouting the standard denial can't does not serve you well.

You realize they have the Highest level of unfunded liabilities out of any State ?

They tried to raise fuel tax recently because they're having some problems with their infrastructure not being kept up but that didnt work out well.

They also have the Highest poverty rates in the Nation when cosy of living is taken into account and they're losing residents and Businesses to States like Texas.

Is that how we fix " Climate change " ? Through economy killing regulations ?

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

While you are at it, You can admit you messed up a simple average, when in post #506, you said.

Speaking about the RSS data set.
0.5498
0.736
0.5852
0.8573
0.6672
0.5672
0.6052
0.5719
0.4938
0.4608
0.1953
0.311
______
6.6007 total divided by 12 =0.550058333

Okay, you got me on one. I double checked at the actual REMSS table and it seems I divided by 10 rather than 12. So you get to chalk one up on me. But since you like to switch around to data sets as needed to support your case, I'll point out that the GISS data shows an average increase of .635 for 1998--coincidentally much closer to my mistake than the number from REMSS. I also see that you've latched on to GISS reporting that the baseline for calculating anomalies might be variable depending on sites on the planet but this makes no difference to the anomalies as long as it relates to the original baseline selected. For one thing, the reporting sites in 1880 were few in number compared with today. You've ignored this part of your quote: In 99.9% of the cases you'll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, and focused on the .1% irrelevancy. That's pretty much your s.o.p.

RSS and the UAH data sets both show some cooling since 1998.

Nope. Still wrong, no matter how many times you misrepresent the numbers. They show a brief slow down in the warming which is not at all the same as cooling. To use your rationalization, one would say that at the end of a hot summer day when the temperature only goes up from the previous hour's high by 1 degree instead of the 3 degrees that it got "cooler." Or, shown graphically

temp time of day
95 4 pm
98 5 pm
99 6 pm

You would say it got cooler at 6 pm when the truth is it just got hotter slower. And the criticism still stands that deniers cherry picking 1998 as the starting date represents an arbitrary choice in order to continue to make this claim which is actually still false no matter where start and stop the time period.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

You realize they have the Highest level of unfunded liabilities out of any State ?

They tried to raise fuel tax recently because they're having some problems with their infrastructure not being kept up but that didnt work out well.

They also have the Highest poverty rates in the Nation when cosy of living is taken into account and they're losing residents and Businesses to States like Texas.

Is that how we fix " Climate change " ? Through economy killing regulations ?

I think you should realize that you started with no credibility on climate and now you've manage to go even lower on the status of CA. You really ought to have that addiction to sewer pipe of rightwing lies on the internet that you rely on for "facts."

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Okay, you got me on one. I double checked at the actual REMSS table and it seems I divided by 10 rather than 12. So you get to chalk one up on me. But since you like to switch around to data sets as needed to support your case, I'll point out that the GISS data shows an average increase of .635 for 1998--coincidentally much closer to my mistake than the number from REMSS. I also see that you've latched on to GISS reporting that the baseline for calculating anomalies might be variable depending on sites on the planet but this makes no difference to the anomalies as long as it relates to the original baseline selected. For one thing, the reporting sites in 1880 were few in number compared with today. You've ignored this part of your quote: In 99.9% of the cases you'll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, and focused on the .1% irrelevancy. That's pretty much your s.o.p.




Nope. Still wrong, no matter how many times you misrepresent the numbers. They show a brief slow down in the warming which is not at all the same as cooling. To use your rationalization, one would say that at the end of a hot summer day when the temperature only goes up from the previous hour's high by 1 degree instead of the 3 degrees that it got "cooler." Or, shown graphically

temp time of day
95 4 pm
98 5 pm
99 6 pm

You would say it got cooler at 6 pm when the truth is it just got hotter slower. And the criticism still stands that deniers cherry picking 1998 as the starting date represents an arbitrary choice in order to continue to make this claim which is actually still false no matter where start and stop the time period.

Wow you actually admitted you made a mistake.
I will stick by my statement that,

RSS and the UAH data sets both show some cooling since 1998.

Here is why,
RSS,
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt
0.550058333 1998
0.1047 1999
0.0925 2000
0.246725 2001
0.314883333 2002
0.319491667 2003
0.200525 2004
0.32965 2005
0.231058333 2006
0.252941667 2007
0.043358333 2008
0.219333333 2009
0.468983333 2010
0.140308333 2011
0.1847 2012
0.216325 2013
0.254741667 2014
The highest reading is 1998 at .550, everything after that is cooler (I.E. the number is lower)
UAH
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
1998 0.4225
1999 -0.030833333
2000 -0.061666667
2001 0.089166667
2002 0.221666667
2003 0.169166667
2004 0.1325
2005 0.254166667
2006 0.184166667
2007 0.225833333
2008 -0.018333333
2009 0.2025
2010 0.407
2011 0.140833333
2012 0.158333333
2013 0.235833333
2014 0.32
Once again the high point is 1998 at .4225, everything after that is cooler (I.E. the number is lower)

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

And yet, you still cannot say which post number you pointed out an error in any of my calculations.
You made an averaging mistake, in post #506, I have made mistakes in the past, and admitted them.
For the simple stuff, like we are discussing here, if you can point out an error in my calculations,
I would be surprised, but would admit it and correct my error.

Your error, of course, is in pretending your calculations disprove AGW is not a serious problem.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

When speakers are paid, not for the content or quality of their research, but for the desirability of their conclusions, it is different.

And let me stop your next move in advance: a coincidence that all quality research has a convergent conclusion does not qualify.

Watts is paid because of the respect he commands. He is a desirable speaker.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Okay, then it's not necessarily a reason to throw out his research.

Lucky for me, you overplayed your hand with the word "none" so i was technically right that at least one of the scientists had American dollars at one time.

No hand was overplayed. I was posting within the bounds of common sense. Somehow you escaped that territory.

 

[humbolt]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

So you agree, it's you deniers who want the name change not the climate science community.

I only commented on the preferred referential terms. Nothing more.

 

[Fenton]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

I think you should realize that you started with no credibility on climate and now you've manage to go even lower on the status of CA. You really ought to have that addiction to sewer pipe of rightwing lies on the internet that you rely on for "facts."

Oh I'm not the one with the Credibility issue. I'm not the one spouting off AGW propaganda. As for the Plague State that is California.......

California has the Nation's Highest Poverty Rates
Census Bureau: California still has highest U.S. poverty rate | The Sacramento Bee


1/3 of Nations Welfare Recipients live in California even though it's only 1/8 of Nations Population
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: California has 12% of US Population, 33% of Welfare Recipients; Texas is Best State to Do Business; California, Illinois, and New York the Worst; Where Does Your State Rank?


California Has the Highest level of Unfunded Liabilities in the Nation
California public pensions? unfunded liabilities staggering, must be fixed: Editorial


California's Crumbling Infrastructure
California?s Crumbling Infrastructure: An Urgent Priority - Western City - February 2014 - Sacramento


Businesses Flee California
EDITORIAL: Businesses flee California's high taxes and regulations - Washington Times


Millions of People flee California
http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article32679753.html


Bankrupt California
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/the-biggest-reason-why-california-is-bankrupt/261524/

So, is this how we fix " Climate Change " ?? Through draconian economy killing regulations and corrupt initiatives like California's Cap and Trade program ?? Because I think if Obama had his way every State in the Union would be as big as a basket case as California. You people really have no idea what your'e doing when it comes to anything except perpetuating propaganda and narratives. It's either that or the intent of agenda's and initiatives like Jerry Browns and Obama's is to literally collapse our economy.
To put America in it's place for all the world to see why Nations like China and India completely ignore all of this Climate nonsense/

 

[humbolt]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

It's obviously an agenda that isn't working. In fact, the ranting right is never louder or more obnoxious than it is any time a dem is president. It's noisome and deafening. Believe me, it'd be nice if we adults were spared the carping, caviling and lying at max volume

but we just have to put up with it and stand our ground.

Damn straight. However, I haven't noticed that the political right has received all that much attention over the past 10 years, unless they were burdened with blame from the left. So maybe they're loud, but yelling into a large media vacuum doesn't produce much in the way of sound. It's possible for nearly anybody to review the coverage by the major media outlets in this country over the past 10 years, as I mentioned, and reach the same conclusion. I do agree the left's agenda is no longer working though. A somnambulant population has finally awakened a bit - reality is setting in, in the face of voluminous rhetoric from the left claiming the opposite. Not much, mind you - just a little.

 

[Fenton]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

It's obviously an agenda that isn't working. In fact, the ranting right is never louder or more obnoxious than it is any time a dem is president. It's noisome and deafening. Believe me, it'd be nice if we adults were spared the carping, caviling and lying at max volume but we just have to put up with it and stand our ground.

Yea those liars on the Right are the problem...:roll:

1,063 Documented Examples of Barack Obama’s Lying, Lawbreaking, Corruption, Cronyism, Hypocrisy, Waste, Etc. - Freedom Outpost

Blog: State Department reveals Hillary lied about request to turn over private server emails

Jerry Brown's " Surplus "...
CA State Controller: State has $8.5 BILLION Cash Deficit, Gov. Brown Calls That a Surplus | Watchdog Wire - California

And yes, the left's agenda isn't working. How far can any Political ideology get just by lying to morons ? Eventually those people who were gullible to buy into your Bull **** ( Hope and Change ) are going to wise up.

 

[code1211]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

I think there is something to it.

As a kid growing up in Houston, TX I walked to school every day. In winter I needed a thick jacket and sometimes had to be careful and not slip on the ice. It seldom snowed then, just like now, but the temps most certainly were much colder.

Now, it is a rare day here when I need a thick jacket, and there is absolutely ZERO ice. Maybe four days a year.

How it got caused seems to be the issue. But as for me, I have no doubt at all that it HAS happened.

That's the difference between an AGW Alarmist and who they would call a Denier.

Both recognize that warming has occurred. The Climate Scientist demands that you agree with his unproven conclusions while the denier wonders what might be making this happen and why the predictions of the experts are not correct.

The same difference exists between used car salesman and a wary customer.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

No hand was overplayed. I was posting within the bounds of common sense. Somehow you escaped that territory.

Allow me to paraphrase the historical account:

[you] Shaviv and Svenmark are not American

[me] but their money is!

[you] actually, none of it is.

After i made my statement, i immediately edited it to affirm that i was making a joke, that i had no proof to back that claim. When you claimed "none" of their money was American, i immediately recognized that you were very likely to be wrong. I found evidence to support that view, yet you seem to deny it, and i'm not sure why.

Again, giving a speech at a conference sponsored by HI surely doesn't immediately discredit anyone, but it seems as strong evidence that they have received American dollars in compensation, no ?

 

[code1211]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

It became climate change simply because the term global warming by itself is insufficient to describe the consequences of the problem; the term "global warming" is still very much in use but always in the context of climate change.

I've never abandoned the word "denier" for those who won't accept the science and facts of climate change and global warming. This idea that the scientific community is changing the labels is silly nonsense. Look at the source for this: the deniers. They're the ones who hate that accurate "denier" description and are trying to upgrade their ignorance to "skeptic" status now.


All that's true and completely irrelevant to climate change from global warming. Volcanoes play almost no role in climate (except maybe a transient localized cooling effect from the fairly rare massive eruptions and the resulting ash clouds).

It became "Climate Change when the predicted warming stopped. If CO2 is not warming as predicted, should we be consumed with the drive to end our minuscule contribution to it's growth? If CO2 does not actually warm the globe, what is it actually doing?

What does a denier actually deny? Why not use me as an example?

Wind currents are NOT a part of the climate? Interesting view. How about ocean currents? Volcanism has been cited as a partial influence for the inaccuracy of the climate predictions. Are you saying this is not a justified attribution to the effect of Volcanoes? Are the predictions simply wrong and wrong due to inaccurate understanding on the part of the experts? Not an unfounded view. Just wondering.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Allow me to paraphrase the historical account:

[you] Shaviv and Svenmark are not American

[me] but their money is!

[you] actually, none of it is.

After i made my statement, i immediately edited it to affirm that i was making a joke, that i had no proof to back that claim. When you claimed "none" of their money was American, i immediately recognized that you were very likely to be wrong. I found evidence to support that view, yet you seem to deny it, and i'm not sure why.

Again, giving a speech at a conference sponsored by HI surely doesn't immediately discredit anyone, but it seems as strong evidence that they have received American dollars in compensation, no ?

I have no evidence your comment was a joke. Your intent was to smear both as some sort of mercenaries. Svensmark is at the Technical University of Denmark. Shaviv is at Hebrew University in Israel.