- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 16,501
- Reaction score
- 3,829
- Location
- Sheffield
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
And yet oddly, you cannot name a single such dataset. So I ask again: on what evidence do you base your claim that the word has not warmed?
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Take your pick of graph to find some numbers which show the expected 0.2c increase in temperature that would be needed to hit the mid point of the IPCC's predictions.
And here is the same graph as Tim stated it "since 1998"So to back up his claim that there has been "no warming", Tim the plumber shows us a graph that proves he's two nipples short of a pipe. Here's the same graph with the linear trend plotted. And guess what? It's warming. Hmmmm.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
And here is the same graph as Tim stated it "since 1998"
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Note the much flatter trend line!
What Tim Said in post #24 was.Note that it's still going up!
Sheesh. Where's the "no warming" we were promised? Or is being just a little bit wrong completely acceptable in Denierstan?
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with him, as the different data sets have different error ranges,All the data sets say that the world has not warmed to any significant degree,
that is more than the error range, since 1998.
Just scanning various material, I noted a letter in the journal called Nature I thought was laughable.
Climate sensitivity constrained by CO: 2: concentrations over the past 420[thinsp]million years : Abstract : Nature
Please note the number of footnotes:
This seems to be the normal. Papers get published all the time that disagree with consensus, then the portrayed consensus agrees with them.
Please note, the one paper, note 2, agrees, but it also disagrees, notes 1 to 5.
What is the real consensus?
There isn't an exact consensus on climate sensitivity. Not sure why you'd expect one.
What Tim Said in post #24 was.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with him, as the different data sets have different error ranges,
but the line could still be going up, and his statement still be true.
Nor have you cited a dataset with it's error range that invalidates his statement.No, it couldn't, because his statement was for "all the datasets" and wood-for-trees doesn't have all the datasets. Nor did his graph.
Tim hasn't even come close to demonstrating that his statement is within a thousand miles of the truth.
Well, if there is disagreement with that wide range of temperature stated, what do you think it means?
Nor have you cited a dataset with it's error range that invalidates his statement.
Then it should be simple for you to post the thread #!Of course I have. I have done so before, in direct response to previous similar false statements by some guy named Tim the plumber. He knows this. He knows he's busted. You're the only one in the dark here.
It means there's a wide range of possible temperature sensitivity.
Then it should be simple for you to post the thread #!
Yes, and apparently there are some that think the correct answer is either less, or greater than that range.
Your answer had no deductive though behind it.
Why are you here?
Do you get your jollies by recklessly sabotaging honest debate?
Then it should be simple for you to post the thread #!
See, was that so difficult! The problem is that the annual error rate, well is an annual error rate,It should be simple for you to know thing 1 about climate. But then, I guess not.
See, was that so difficult! The problem is that the annual error rate, well is an annual error rate,
which over time will actually get better with a greater number of samples.
this applies only if the errors are random and unbiased.
Unfortunately, the errors introduced by temperature sampling methodology are not random,
and could accumulate.
There are additional papers on this, but here is one,What is your evidence for this?
What is your evidence for this?
There are additional papers on this, but here is one,
Sampling Biases in Datasets of Historical Mean Air Temperature over Land
The table 1, clearly shows a positive bias in the Max-Min temperature methodology.
PubMed Central, Table 1: Sci Rep. 2014; 4: 4637. Published online 2014 Apr 10. doi:* 10.1038/srep04637
Note that when Td0 is integrated from the hourly values, is subtracted from
Td1 = (Tmax + Tmin)/2, the result in both cold and warm seasons is a positive number.
Any bias will cause error accumulation.
I am sorry you do not understand the nature of errors, and how non random errors accumulate.No it won't. In order to show that, you have to show that the error in 1998 was greater than the error in 2015; AND that the error in 1998 was more strongly positive than the error in 2015; AND that the magnitude of the difference in the errors between 1998 and 2015 was greater than the stated error of each dataset; AND that the magnitude of the difference between the errors was enough greater than the stated error of the dataset, that the error bars.
All you've done is shown that if you measure average temp one way, it comes out higher than if you measure average temp in a different way. What you have NOT done is show that the errors themselves are any larger; nor have you shown that (even IF they are larger) the difference is enough to save Tim-the-plumber's false statement and make it true.
Back to school, longview.
Can you say common sense?
I am sorry you do not understand the nature of errors, and how non random errors accumulate.
Non random errors are called bias or systematic errors,Oh by all means, educate us. Explain how non-random errors accumulate. We're all ears.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?