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

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

I just thought it was funny.

The last time I heard "wowser" was Dan Aykroyd in "My Stepmother is an Alien." However, I took a brief moment to look it up, and it is a common Inspector gadget term.

Your pop culture knowledge is considerable.

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

I averaged them for ease of presentation. They don't have to be averaged. Left as they are in the table, they still tell the same story. I've explained why the N. hemisphere data is so important. That you can't seem to understand that crucial point is one of the reasons you're a denier rather than an honest skeptic.

To point use a hemisphere record when talking about global records, is an attempt to misrepresent the data.

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

See, this is what you do: every time I make you uncomfortable with the fact that there is not just continued warming since 1998 but accelerating warming you revert back to trying to reduce fairly complicated data to just two data points, carefully pivoting your entire case on one year even after you, yourself, have conceded that we should be looking at decadal trends. But it doesn't work out too well for your case if you actually just blend 1998 into the 1991-2000 decade, does it. In fact, let's do a little decadal work using several different starting and end points. First, the convention decades of 1991-2000, 2001-2010; then decades ending on the 8th year and beginning on the 8th year of the decade. Using GISS global data.

Average* anomaly

1989-1998: .387
1999-2008: .573

delta: .186

1991-2000: .398
2001-2010: .625

delta: .27



1998-2007: .582
2008-2015: .647
preliminary so no delta
* some slight variations due to rounding may be seen
So, only by isolating out 1998 from all the other time periods can you continue to claim that there's been "cooling" since then. I could even do this with 5 year periods and the results would be the same. If done with larger periods, such as 20 year intervals, the increase would look even greater. This is why I keep hammering you for perverting the data to your denier needs.

I actually want to challenge some of your numbers,
Lets look at the data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
You said ,

Using GISS global data.

Average* anomaly

1989-1998: .387
1999-2008: .573

delta: .186

1991-2000: .398
2001-2010: .625

delta: .27

GISS J-D
1989 .29
1998 .63
Delta .34 (where did you get the .387?)

1999 42
2008 54
dalta .12 (again, where did you get a delta between 1999 and 2008 of .573)?

I am not going to bother with a rate of warming between your incorrect figures.

1991 .43
2000 .42
delta -.01 How did you manage to get .398?

2001 .55
2010 .72
delta .17 Can you get a single data point and simple subtraction correct ?

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

I'm not the one who ridiculed the IAS. It was Nobel prize winner Richard Feynman who was genius and considered the father of modern quantum theory whose hypotheses still form the basis of most of today's research. I think scientifically naive people like you are easily impressed and I can still find no evidence that Shaviv is now or ever was a resident scholar at IAS and you haven't provided us with any either. It hardly matters since it's really not a very high honor among the scientific community. It seems to be a bit of a dinosaur.

Apparently written in ignorance of my #689. As for the status of IAS, your claim is laughable.

Past Faculty have included Albert Einstein, who remained at the Institute until his death in 1955, and distinguished scientists and scholars such as Kurt Gödel, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Erwin Panofsky, Hetty Goldman, Homer A. Thompson, John von Neumann, George Kennan, Hermann Weyl, and Clifford Geertz.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

To point use a hemisphere record when talking about global records, is an attempt to misrepresent the data.

To ignore the importance of accelerated N. hemisphere warming is just pure denialism.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

I'm not sure what this tells us other than he "visited" the IAS between a certain date. Is that what being a "resident scholar" means--he stopped by? Anyway, I think we've pretty much determined that this IAS thing is not much of a deal among the scientific community. It's membership is so large it's sort of like being invited to join the YMCA and pretend it's an exclusive athletic club. Mind you, I'm not suggesting Shaviv isn't good at what he does but in the area of climate science he's a parvenu and his ideas are purely hypothetical at this point and even if there is something to them regarding paleoclimatic processes they are extremely unlikely to be of any relevance to human existence and the current forcing effects of added atmospheric CO2 which is almost entirely human produced.

Yes, that's what being a resident scholar means at IAS, and only you have advanced the foolish notion that IAS is "not much of a deal."

Past Faculty have included Albert Einstein, who remained at the Institute until his death in 1955, and distinguished scientists and scholars such as Kurt Gödel, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Erwin Panofsky, Hetty Goldman, Homer A. Thompson, John von Neumann, George Kennan, Hermann Weyl, and Clifford Geertz.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

I actually want to challenge some of your numbers,
Lets look at the data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
You said ,

GISS J-D
1989 .29
1998 .63
Delta .34 (where did you get the .387?)

1999 42
2008 54
dalta .12 (again, where did you get a delta between 1999 and 2008 of .573)?

I am not going to bother with a rate of warming between your incorrect figures.

1991 .43
2000 .42
delta -.01 How did you manage to get .398?

2001 .55
2010 .72
delta .17 Can you get a single data point and simple subtraction correct ?

You're just picking out individual years and not decadal averages. Your not challenging my numbers, you're setting up a completely different comparison.

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Longviews entire argument can be summed up in this graph:

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

It's so amusing to read your posts because you are absolutely, dead on certain of things that are just not so.

CLOUD | CERN

From a link on your own link:

"
The CLOUD results show that cosmic ray ionisation has only a small effect on the formation rate of amine-sulphuric acid particles but they don’t rule out more significant effects if sulphuric acid particles nucleate with other vapours in the lower atmosphere.
"

Hmmm...

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Isn't it cute that the Dogmatic Alarmists deny EVERY OTHER POSSIBILITY other than the dominant impact of Anthropogenic CO2, every one of them, in the 1000's, and yet call those who merely question their hysteria "Deniers".

Their hysteria then causes them to use every debating technique from lies to selective omission to cherry picking to inappropriate appeals to authority in their efforts support the unsupportable.

Not much different than watching a political party member defend his party's lies. I wonder why this similarity exists...

Everything here is exactly wrong.

I disagree with Shaviv because he dismisses mature, well-founded research for the sake of his premature, unproven ideas. He actually says "we don't know how clouds are formed," when dismissing CO2-based warming, and then says "cosmic rays have a huge impact on cloud formation," and it, honestly, erodes his integrity.

The only cherry picking happens to fabricate this delusion that AGW is false. I welcome any and all data. I urge caution over reckless denial of trivially obvious scientific fact.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

As it happens, both of my brothers live in California, the LA area.

The prevailing wisdom out there is that there is not a water quantity problem, just a water management problem.

The belief among the Angelinos is that the rainy-season rainfalls, if captured in reservoirs instead of shunted to the oceans would be adequate to support their needs through the year.

I don't know why they only talk about this without doing anything about it. New Orleans Syndrome? Maybe they already ran out of money after regulating every damn thing in the state already.

Just a baffling oversimplification of the issues surrounding California's lack of water.

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

You're just picking out individual years and not decadal averages. Your not challenging my numbers, you're setting up a completely different comparison.

Actually you are just showing that the temperature average from 1989 to 1998 is lower than the temperature average from 1999 to 2008, not a rate of increase.

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

To ignore the importance of accelerated N. hemisphere warming is just pure denialism.

The discussion is about Global warming.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

It can't be explained to anyone who's unable or refuses to understand it. To paraphrase an old saying: it's impossible to get a man to understand something that his ideology prohibits him from understanding.

How about a money quit, time index, or something please.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Lol !

I love Archer. Cracks me up, I'm still trying to catch up on Season 6

I found it much easier to wait till the DVD comes out. Season 6 is wonderful.

 

[code1211]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

So you brought up volcanoes why again?


Again, you demonstrate that your side just will not or cannot understand the difference between weather and climate. This is what is meant by being uneducatable.



Warming hasn't stopped in the past 45 years. That's what's so unique in the planet's weather patterns (i.e., climate) in the past 135 years since temperature data began being collected systematically. Add that to the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere is higher now (40% higher in just the past 135 years) than at any time since before humans existed on the planet and this is what's called data, as opposed to whatever it is you use to make up stuff about the subject.


If you're implying that deniers are stupid, the evidence for that would be coming from them. But I don't think it's stupidity that drives them. It's really ideology which requires them to use dishonesty and a stubborness in not accepting the facts. I take "longview" as an example. He's certainly not stupid because he's very good at juggling data to make it fit with his denial. It's patent fakery but he's learned to do it over and over again and be completely undaunted every time the fakery is demonstrated to him. It's a lot like watching a bad magician whose tricks are completely transparent but he still continues to do his act as if the audience hasn't caught on. That is a commitment to ideology, not science.

You are a piece of poorly planned and executed work.

I mentioned that volcanoes can and do impact the climate. You assumed I was saying volcanoes cause warming. i did not. You are wrong in that. You seem to be making a habit of being wrong. Strike one.

Ocean currents most obviously do have a very strong impact on the Climate. On the weather as well, but also on the climate. Ice age cycles did not start until the Isthmus of Panama was closed by Continental Drift thereby altering the ocean currents. You deny that ocean currents have an impact on climate. Strike two.

Warming describes the change in the temperature. The temperature has both increased and decreased over the sliver of time you have cherry picked. You deny this and are wrong. Strike three. You're out.

I am not discussing "deniers". I am discussing you. You are making another mistake interpreting what I say. I must admit, your thought process is entirely disjointed. I say something pretty clearly and you take off on a tangent unrelated to my statement. Interesting method of avoidance and denial.

I'm still waiting for you to define the "catastrophe" that you have said will occur due to AGW. You also avoided and denied that.

You do a lot of denying for a person who seems to despise deniers.

 

[code1211]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

I see we're into that familiar denier phase of serial commenting in the form of slapping up a bunch of graphs and charts without understanding what's on them and pretending you've made some kind of point. Or, in your particular case, introducing volcanoes into the jumble of denier gobbledygook and when that gets slapped down pretending they never said anything about volcanoes. I call this tactic the "denier dump." It's the climate deniers version of a retreating and defeated army burning bridges in hopes of at least escaping total destruction.

You are an empty barrel with no comprehension skills.

You get called out on your misunderstanding, then start boxing with a straw man.

You're seem to be lost and afraid.

 

[code1211]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

From a link on your own link:

"
The CLOUD results show that cosmic ray ionisation has only a small effect on the formation rate of amine-sulphuric acid particles but they don’t rule out more significant effects if sulphuric acid particles nucleate with other vapours in the lower atmosphere.
"

Hmmm...

The idea is that cloud formation can reduce the warming effect of the Sun's radiation.

I don't think that the effect of cosmic radiation is going to create another snowball Earth absent other influences.

However, there are some pretty brainy folks wondering abut this and doing research on it.

The impression I was getting from various comments was that the entire scientific community had rejected this notion out of hand and that is simply not so.

The research is ongoing.

 

[code1211]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Everything here is exactly wrong.

I disagree with Shaviv because he dismisses mature, well-founded research for the sake of his premature, unproven ideas. He actually says "we don't know how clouds are formed," when dismissing CO2-based warming, and then says "cosmic rays have a huge impact on cloud formation," and it, honestly, erodes his integrity.

The only cherry picking happens to fabricate this delusion that AGW is false. I welcome any and all data. I urge caution over reckless denial of trivially obvious scientific fact.

In the arena of Global Climate Change, we are discussing fractions of a degree of temperature change across several millennia. Most recently, +0.7 degrees C. in 2000 years. Before that, - about 1.5 C. in the preceding 6000 years.

The AGW proponents like to limit the discussion to the period following 1880 and discard the other 4 and half billion years of the Earth's climate history.

The temperature in space is a little cooler than -450 F. The temperature on Earth is a little warmer than +60 F. The impact of the Sun on our climate system is pretty strong, but in the end, we are discussing a pretty small percent of change from any of the factors we are discussing. So we are discussing the changes of about 2 or 3 degrees F. across 10,000 years in a range of about 500 degrees.

If the impact of the cosmic rays on cloud formation do anything at all, the impact is not much different than that of the increased CO2 that is so loudly ballyhooed.

I don't think most assert that this is the dominant factor in climate change, obviously, that is the Sun. Yet the impact seems to be there.

 

[code1211]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Just a baffling oversimplification of the issues surrounding California's lack of water.

Both of my bothers were espousing this as the local wisdom. I have no idea what the stats might be to either support or destroy this notion. It seems impossible to me that there could be enough water to support this population in the desert falling in the rainy season.

It also seems impossible that if the solution was this easy, there wouldn't be a drive to make it happen. Wouldn't be the first reservoir in the USA.

Everything not irrigated is brown all the time.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

I don't think anyone here disagrees that global warming has happened.

The disagreement is about how much is natural, and how much cause by mankind.

There is too much emphasis placed on carbon dioxide and not enough on methane as means of man quickly altering greenhouse gases in the atmosphere This is primarily due to politics since big oil/gas are far easier to portray as the boogie man than dairy/meat farmers are.

Methane vs. Carbon Dioxide: A Greenhouse Gas Showdown | One Green Planet

 

[longview]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

I have been playing around with comparing the four data sets in absolute temperature.
The GISS has their conversion, so using the time baseline of the other data sets,
with the GISS numbers, should give them all a consistent reference.
78-98 GISS avg 14.3030033333 RSS
60-90 GISS ave 14.2472513889 HadCrut4
81-2010 GISS avg 14.3999441667 UAH

GISS RSS UAH Hadcrut4
1979 14.17 14.209 14.260 14.154
1980 14.28 14.318 14.423 14.190
1981 14.33 14.325 14.388 14.238
1982 14.13 14.131 14.181 14.110
1983 14.31 14.369 14.368 14.291
1984 14.16 14.079 14.078 14.085
1985 14.12 14.042 14.122 14.069
1986 14.19 14.164 14.185 14.144
1987 14.34 14.402 14.443 14.289
1988 14.4 14.369 14.443 14.299
1989 14.29 14.183 14.223 14.219
1990 14.44 14.377 14.407 14.395
1991 14.42 14.384 14.450 14.352
1992 14.23 14.124 14.143 14.203
1993 14.24 14.185 14.186 14.243
1994 14.32 14.331 14.322 14.304
1995 14.46 14.462 14.444 14.419
1996 14.35 14.350 14.355 14.280
1997 14.48 14.405 14.379 14.487
1998 14.63 14.853 14.850 14.634
1999 14.42 14.408 14.376 14.405
2000 14.42 14.396 14.372 14.393
2001 14.55 14.550 14.538 14.538
2002 14.63 14.618 14.650 14.594
2003 14.62 14.623 14.618 14.607
2004 14.55 14.504 14.540 14.548
2005 14.69 14.633 14.692 14.642
2006 14.64 14.534 14.618 14.603
2007 14.66 14.557 14.638 14.591
2008 14.54 14.347 14.421 14.493
2009 14.65 14.523 14.643 14.604
2010 14.71 14.773 14.830 14.657
2011 14.6 14.444 14.563 14.520
2012 14.63 14.489 14.602 14.568
2013 14.66 14.520 14.666 14.597
2014 14.75 14.559 14.702 14.665

Comments?

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

You are an empty barrel with no comprehension skills.

You get called out on your misunderstanding, then start boxing with a straw man.

You're seem to be lost and afraid.

That's the sort of empty comment that someone who's got no idea what he's talking about. It's basically just a whine in written form.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Comments?

First a question: which version of the HadCrut4 did you use?

Then this prelim. observation: the decadal trends are for GISS are
'79-'88 .23
'89-98 .23
'99-'08 -.09
'09-'14 .21 (in just 6 years)

So would you call that decadal trend "cooling" since only one of the four of them showed that (with the very strong indicators right now (2015) that the next decade in that series (ending 2018) will be even higher than any of the previous? In fact, that one decade would also be the only one showing this "cooling" if the previous decade (1969-1978= .15) were also added.
In fact, the reason that '99-08 decade is so low is entirely due to just two consecutive years of that period, 1999 and 2000. Since you're always okay with carving out sections of time to make your point, you'll allow me to point out that after those two cold years the rest of that decade heats up at a .608ºC rate. So again, this myth of cooling rests on statistical outliers of very brief duration.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

The discussion is about Global warming.

And hemispheric variance is very much a part of that global warming. I realize you don't want to face the fact that global warming threatens the populated and agricultural half of the planet more than the mostly ocean covered (which explains most if not all of that variance) and unpopulated half. But that is a fact, nonetheless.