• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientific American - 2019 - what to expect...

Surface Detail said:
It doesn't matter what baseline you choose. That's why you can choose it! Whatever baseline you choose makes no difference at all to the change in temperature over a particular interval, which is what we are interested in. No choice of baseline can "make his results look higher". This is really basic stuff. Frankly, I'm surprised that you still seem to be having difficulty grasping it.
Click to expand...
Consider that the author particular choice placed the average at -.358 C, so moving the ZERO would increase the
entire range by .357 C including the top end, but the normal pre industrial baseline (1850-1900) is -.310C.
Cherry picking the baseline added .047 C to the warming total.
under the cherry picked baseline the total pre industrial warming in HadCRUT.4.6.0.0 would be
the difference between the baseline and the most recent year (2018), so .595 - (-.358)=.953C,
but the total warming with the 1850-1900 baseline would be .595 -(-.311)= .906C.
Let's not pretend that changing baselines is a simple DC offset.
 
longview said:
Consider that the author particular choice placed the average at -.358 C, so moving the ZERO would increase the
entire range by .357 C including the top end, but the normal pre industrial baseline (1850-1900) is -.310C.
Cherry picking the baseline added .047 C to the warming total.
under the cherry picked baseline the total pre industrial warming in HadCRUT.4.6.0.0 would be
the difference between the baseline and the most recent year (2018), so .595 - (-.358)=.953C,
but the total warming with the 1850-1900 baseline would be .595 -(-.311)= .906C.
Let's not pretend that changing baselines is a simple DC offset.
Click to expand...

OH MY GOD!

0.05 degrees!

What a scandal!
 
longview said:
Consider that the author particular choice placed the average at -.358 C, so moving the ZERO would increase the
entire range by .357 C including the top end, but the normal pre industrial baseline (1850-1900) is -.310C.
Cherry picking the baseline added .047 C to the warming total.
under the cherry picked baseline the total pre industrial warming in HadCRUT.4.6.0.0 would be
the difference between the baseline and the most recent year (2018), so .595 - (-.358)=.953C,
but the total warming with the 1850-1900 baseline would be .595 -(-.311)= .906C.
Let's not pretend that changing baselines is a simple DC offset.
Click to expand...

Surface Detail is right. It doesn't matter what the baseline is. As long as all the changes to the data are the same you can't increase or decrease any apparent warming. And that is true no matter how bad your math is.
 
Buzz said:
Surface Detail is right. It doesn't matter what the baseline is. As long as all the changes to the data are the same you can't increase or decrease any apparent warming. And that is true no matter how bad your math is.
Click to expand...
That is not correct, as I have already shown, since the baseline is an average, the selection of the start and end dates can affect the total observed warming.
In the authors cast , the selection, increased the total range by .047 C, or almost 6%.
 
Media_Truth said:
Not so bad of a scandal though - it was only .047 degrees.
Click to expand...

There's no 'scandal' at all. just longview jumping to wrong conclusions because he doesn't know what he's looking at.

He neglected to notice the label on the graph showing it was based on a paper: Jones et al 2013. The graph by Dr Gareth S Jones is updated from fig 10.1 from Chapter 10 of the IPCC AR5 WG1 report. It explains how they handled the data and why. He also assumed that the lead author of the paper was just a "blogger". :roll:

Here's the paper he didn't bother to read:

Jones, Gareth S., Peter A. Stott, and Nikolaos Christidis. "Attribution of observed historical near‒surface temperature variations to anthropogenic and natural causes using CMIP5 simulations." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118, no. 10 (2013): 4001-4024.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50239
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom