Global Cooling in 2009 (375 Sources)

[Peephole]

There's always record breaking temperatures, it doesn't mean what you think it means regarding climate. Much more interesting is the ratio of record highs to record lows:

 

[Corsair 115]

Actually no they document record breaking cold. Which to a six grader means breaking a previous record and now being the "coldest" in the "global warming" era.

Perhaps you can explain the reasoning behind your assumption that global warming means an end to the existence of winter.

 

[Poptech]

Perhaps you can explain the reasoning behind your assumption that global warming means an end to the existence of winter.

It doesn't, rather this further debunks alarmist greenhouse theories since they state that winters not summers will get warmer.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I like manatee steaks

 

[BenBurch]

Does the OP hope to accomplish something, besides being mocked?

I can't imagine any other outcome because its so wrong that it is rather like saying the Moon is made of green cheese, and meaning it.

 

[BenBurch]

I like manatee steaks

Them's good eatin'.

 

[Corsair 115]

It doesn't, rather this further debunks alarmist greenhouse theories since they state that winters not summers will get warmer.

Feel free to cite a recent published study or report which says that global warming means winters get warmer everywhere around the globe. I'm not aware of any offhand, so I'm willing to be enlightened.

 

[varwoche]

I say, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

Naples, Florida ties record low of 35

Record cold to many northern Minnesota communities

Record lows in Finland

Unusually cold stratospheric temperatures

Denver - record low

A record number of cold-stunned sea turtles stranded on Cape Cod
(What is it with you warmers? First manatees and now sea turtles.)

Er, except for one itsy bitsy problem.

These events occurred in 1999, the warmest year on instrumental record.

 

[Geckko]

And we can say, based on Tamino's post, that the time period Lucia used is too short to say anything meaningful about climate trends. Which Lucia must know because she isn't stupid, and yet she persists.

The point is moot. Especially given the analysis I was pointed to by Tamino is not germaine to measuring and testing estaimtes of trends.

It is a simple point. We apply statistical methods to gauge whether what we witness as some form of explained variation in the data is sufficiently large relative to unexplained vairation for us to make some probability statements.

Tamino can't get around an appropriate and correctly applied statistical analysis that shows the measured trend (over any period) is sufficiently different from that hypothesised as supposed to be occurring over time.

It is an unassailable fact that testing the hypothesised statement that "the world is warming by 0.2 degrees per decade over time" - the basis of the last IPCC report on the matter - shows the data we have actually collected since then would be very unlikely to have occurred. The statistical analysis shows that quite clearly:

Tamino can say that the more comlex process allows for such deviations over, say, 10 years, but that does of course imply that we will need to witness subsequently higher trends above 0.2 per decade in the future to "catch up" to the hypothesis. He may be right, he may be wrong, but that brings us back to crystal ball gazing, which is of no inferential value. Tamino also sticks to some unexplained choices in his analysis that tend to increase the size of his error bands unecessarily. I would recommend Lucia as a superior statistician and her analysis more useful.


We still come back to the hard data we have:

If there was an underlying trend of warming of 0.2 degrees per century, then, after accounting for the year to year unexplained (i.e. random) variation in the data, it is very unlikely (significantly less than one chance in 20, maybe one chance in 200) that we would have had the run of data we have had.

The only response for a statistician is to keep watching the data as it unfolds.

 

[Pixel42]

It is an unassailable fact that testing the hypothesised statement that "the world is warming by 0.2 degrees per decade over time" - the basis of the last IPCC report on the matter - shows the data we have actually collected since then would be very unlikely to have occurred.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

The Met Office figures indicate that the years since 2000 - the "noughties" - were on average about 0.18C (0.32F) warmer than years in the 1990s; and that since the 1970s, each decade has seen an increase of about the same scale.

 

[Belz...]

Actually no they document record breaking cold. Which to a six grader means breaking a previous record and now being the "coldest" in the "global warming" era.

Perhaps to a six grader. Meanwhile, in the world of adults...

 

[Geckko]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

Please read the thread more carefully. We covered that ground earlier.

 

[fsol]

The point is moot. Especially given the analysis I was pointed to by Tamino is not germaine to measuring and testing estaimtes of trends.

It is a simple point. We apply statistical methods to gauge whether what we witness as some form of explained variation in the data is sufficiently large relative to unexplained vairation for us to make some probability statements.

Tamino can't get around an appropriate and correctly applied statistical analysis that shows the measured trend (over any period) is sufficiently different from that hypothesised as supposed to be occurring over time.

It is an unassailable fact that testing the hypothesised statement that "the world is warming by 0.2 degrees per decade over time" - the basis of the last IPCC report on the matter - shows the data we have actually collected since then would be very unlikely to have occurred. The statistical analysis shows that quite clearly:

Tamino can say that the more comlex process allows for such deviations over, say, 10 years, but that does of course imply that we will need to witness subsequently higher trends above 0.2 per decade in the future to "catch up" to the hypothesis. He may be right, he may be wrong, but that brings us back to crystal ball gazing, which is of no inferential value. Tamino also sticks to some unexplained choices in his analysis that tend to increase the size of his error bands unecessarily. I would recommend Lucia as a superior statistician and her analysis more useful.


We still come back to the hard data we have:

If there was an underlying trend of warming of 0.2 degrees per century, then, after accounting for the year to year unexplained (i.e. random) variation in the data, it is very unlikely (significantly less than one chance in 20, maybe one chance in 200) that we would have had the run of data we have had.

The only response for a statistician is to keep watching the data as it unfolds.

Either intentionally or unintentionally you seem to be missing the point. So it goes.

 

[BenBurch]

Amazing how apparently reasonable people feel the need to confabulate on this issue.

 

[Geckko]

Either intentionally or unintentionally you seem to be missing the point. So it goes.

Excellent.

 

[BenBurch]

Excellent.

So, you mean to be trolling?

 

[Geckko]

So, you mean to be trolling?

I did not provide the content free post. If there is a different point to the one I am addressing common sense would suggest you indicate where you think the apparent cross lines seem to be.

To say. So, you are trolling, or so you miss the point are a poor excuse for discussion.

 

[lomiller]

Especially given the analysis I was pointed to by Tamino is not germaine to measuring and testing estaimtes of trends.

It’s far more germane then the method you are using. As pointed out, your “analysis” is flawed and doesn’t remotely show what you think it does. Instead of repeating yourself fix the errors.

You cannot, as you seem to believe, reduce the variability in the system by sampling it more often else we could simply generate hundreds of data points in a single month and “prove” a trend of hundreds of degrees per decade. Clearly your method is nonsensical; you can’t just take random formulas, plug in numbers and expect meaningful results.

We apply statistical methods to gauge whether what we witness as some form of explained variation in the data is sufficiently large relative to unexplained variation for us to make some probability statements.

Natural variation in a chaotic system is hardly unexplained.

 

[BenBurch]

I did not provide the content free post. If there is a different point to the one I am addressing common sense would suggest you indicate where you think the apparent cross lines seem to be.

To say. So, you are trolling, or so you miss the point are a poor excuse for discussion.

When you admit to intentionally missing the point, I don't think there is any discussion any more.

 

[BenBurch]

Oversampling is only useful when attempting certain sorts of signal processing that require identical sample sizes. Even then it produces unreliable results. But sometimes this is better than no result at all.