Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

Oh BTW it looks very much like the ice has bottomed out for this year. Doesn't somebody owe some money?

:)
 
DogB said:
Of course - but if you accept the premise that anything less than a thirty year trend isn't trustworthy then you are reduced to using such processes.

Smoothing over thirty year period doesn’t leave us with a whole lot of reliable data.
Click to expand...

Was I not entirely clear?

That is the point I have been making.

In statistics the "amount" of data you have is only ever relative to the degrees of freedom contained within that data.

The true amount of data (in statistical terms - aadjusted for degrees of freedom) when looking at climatic trends is in fact quite small. Back to where I began.
 
Last edited:
DogB said:
Oh BTW it looks very much like the ice has bottomed out for this year. Doesn't somebody owe some money?

:)
Click to expand...

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/amsre_sea-ice-zoomed-richardson.png

Complete with the patented Watts Zoom. I think he's too early to make that claim, but he could be right. Either way, I don't see the long term average on that graph.

Reminds me of this for some reason.

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/09/arctic-sea-ice-staggering-growth.html
 
-The trend from 2000-2009 is shows no statistically significant difference from the 1980-2009 trend
-The 1945-1975 and 1945-2009 trends do show a statistically significant difference from the 1980-2009 trend.
-The 1900-2009 trend is different yet again.

It is possible to identify inflection points where trends change from one value to another, but the last decade isn’t and example of this. Calling a multi-year trend a single data point, however is simply ridiculous.
 
lomiller said:
Calling a multi-year trend a single data point, however is simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous? We've been told that we need thirty years to smooth out the noise in the signal - therefore one thirty year period gives us a single trend quantitation. Doesn't it?
 
lomiller said:
.... It is possible to identify inflection points where trends change from one value to another, but the last decade isn’t and example of this.... .
Click to expand...
There are statistical methods to support this approach to looking at the data. One of the five articles I referenced earlier in the thread took this approach. As I recall the conclusion was along the lines of ...

"Yep...gonna git cooler"...
 
DogB said:
Oh BTW it looks very much like the ice has bottomed out for this year. Doesn't somebody owe some money?

:)
Click to expand...
Yes, it looks like Wangler will be paying $10 to a charity of my choosing.

I think we should wait a few weeks in case there are any corrections, though.

See the "Permafrost" thread, where the bet was made.
 
TrueSceptic said:
Yes, it looks like Wangler will be paying $10 to a charity of my choosing.

I think we should wait a few weeks in case there are any corrections, though.

See the "Permafrost" thread, where the bet was made.
Click to expand...

Should we wait that long?

I am ready to concede at this time.

Thanks for taking the bet with me! Added some intensity to the watching of sea ice.
 
Perhaps the next round shouldn't involve internet amateurs trying to perform their own analysis on the data sets and “proving” respected science organizations are “getting it all wrong”
 
lomiller said:
Perhaps the next round shouldn't involve internet amateurs trying to perform their own analysis on the data sets and “proving” respected science organizations are “getting it all wrong”
Click to expand...

I get this instead of a response to my questions about the use of the HadSSTv2 data?

Why am I not surprised?

:nope:
 
Wangler said:
Should we wait that long?

I am ready to concede at this time.

Thanks for taking the bet with me! Added some intensity to the watching of sea ice.
Click to expand...
OK then. Please give the $10 to the World Wildlife Fund. It's up to you if you want to make it specific but I think the work they do trying to protect whales might be of local interest. :)

Thanks for taking the bet. :D
 
TrueSceptic said:
OK then. Please give the $10 to the World Wildlife Fund. It's up to you if you want to make it specific but I think the work they do trying to protect whales might be of local interest. :)

Thanks for taking the bet. :D
Click to expand...

I am very happy to be able to make the donation to that organization. It will be done this week.

Thanks for playing, it was fun. :)
 
lomiller said:
I don’t know why it should come as a surprise when you are offered the suggestion your own personal analysis doesn’t hold the weight as one done by NOAA.
Click to expand...

I guess what really comes as a surprise that my "analysis" is an issue, considering it wasn't an "analysis", but rather a "presentation" of the HadSST data.

I am still awaiting a valid scientific reason to ignore that data, or a valid reason my presentation of that data is flawed.

My best guess is that if you had either, it would have been presented by now.
 
Last edited:
Reiterating :rolleyes: if you do not know the basis on which NASA made the assessment of record ocean temps then one dataset is simply immaterial especially one that is .00x off its own record levels....

Nitpicking comes to mind....:garfield:
 
macdoc said:
..then one dataset is simply immaterial especially one that is .00x off its own record levels....
Click to expand...

This statement clearly shows you have not even bothered to look at the HadSST data. Strange.

May I suggest a pause in your incessant spamming campaign to actually look at some data?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom