Global Cooling in 2009 (375 Sources)

[Megalodon]

The funny thing is, if you don't take the 00's into account, the long-term trend actually decreases. Not only it kept warming, it warmed faster than expected from the values up to 1999.



The provisional value for 2009 puts it almost exactly where it was predicted by the 1970-1999 trend, and 7/10 years in the 00's are above that trend, but I guess since 2005 was the hottest year on record and 2008 was only the 10th, somehow climatologists are wrong

 

[Geckko]

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.

There is nothing nonsensical about it.

If I was to turn your own technically flawed point around at you, you cannot aggregate data points of a time series and reduce the periodicity as a way of increasing standards errors.

I'm afraid you are simply wrong because you do not understand statistics. Using the monthly data is perfectly acceptable as long as you account for the autocorrelation properly, which in Lucia's case she appears to do.

Natural variation in a chaotic system is hardly unexplained.

In the statistical sense it may be. The term is completely unambiguous in statistics.

 

[Locknar]

Several off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate, posts have been moved to AAH. Please keep the discussion civil/polite, on topic...and remember it is attack the argument and NOT the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[lomiller]

Again you are simply incorrect. The variation arises from the system not the measurement, meaning you cannot make it go a way simply by taking more measurements over the same time period.

 

[BenBurch]

See; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5489599&postcount=136

 

[Trakar]

Not sure what issue is at hand, seems rather clear to me:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

2000 0.3886
2001 0.5173
2002 0.5736
2003 0.5809
2004 0.5409
2005 0.6148
2006 0.5584
2007 0.5456
2008 0.4796

and the 2009 data isn't included yet, but looks to be in the upper 0.5s to me (with the Jan to Oct. average being 0.56 and then adding in the record warm Nov. with a 0.6 temp anomaly and a moderately warm Dec.). Should yeild a year that fits in the 4rth or 5th slot on Record warm years globally. So to be conservative I'll estimate it to a 0.56 annual average temp anomaly.

2009 0.5600

So what's all the wrangling over, statistical display? Statistical display is determined primarily by what you are trying to look at and compare, there is no inherently "best" display associated with raw data. If you are trying to compare and grapple with global temperature data and annual (or with respect to climate the much more relevent decadal) trends then those are the parameters you graph.

 

[dudalb]

I am beginning to think the OP is a Global Warming advocate who is trying to make Global Warming opponents look as stupid as possible.
The quoting cold temperatures in a location to "prove" there is no Global Warming has been so throughly ripped to shreds that most people arguing against Global Warming never use it.

 

[CapelDodger]

I am beginning to think the OP is a Global Warming advocate who is trying to make Global Warming opponents look as stupid as possible.

If Poptech is an envented parody I salute the inventor.

The quoting cold temperatures in a location to "prove" there is no Global Warming has been so throughly ripped to shreds that most people arguing against Global Warming never use it.

True, but denialists who don't actually argue anything are having a fine old time with it in the echo-chamber. Watts, for instance, of WattsUpMyButt. And, of course, PopTech in or own hallowed hall.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

It's not global cold, though, is it? It's cold in some places and warm in others. Such as the Arctic and Australia.

I'll be interested to see what you have to say when there's record-breaking warmth in the regions you do seem concerned about (which may be as soon as next NH summer).

 

[CapelDodger]

The funny thing is, if you don't take the 00's into account, the long-term trend actually decreases. Not only it kept warming, it warmed faster than expected from the values up to 1999.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2814b4617ee0970b.jpg[/URL]

The provisional value for 2009 puts it almost exactly where it was predicted by the 1970-1999 trend, and 7/10 years in the 00's are above that trend, but I guess since 2005 was the hottest year on record and 2008 was only the 10th, somehow climatologists are wrong

Funnier still (I have a nasty sense of humour) is that the 2000's were the Golden Decade for deniers, a decade they will sorely miss. This winter in the Eastern US and central Europe is their swan-song, since the chances of these record chills being beaten anytime soon is remote. The chances of the 1998 warmth being beaten soon are extremely high.

A straight line drawn from 1998 to 2008 gets old very quickly, and the argument that "warming stopped in the 2000's so it might stop again" won't resonate much. Some deniers have gone so far as to claim that "we are in a cooling phase", but they're like economists in that being repeatedly wrong never seems to faze them.

 

[BenBurch]

CD, be careful with that prediction about cold winters. When you disturb the climate you can get paradoxical results because you change mixing...

If, for example, we stop the Gulf Stream, you'll have a terrible time of it in Wales.

 

[CapelDodger]

CD, be careful with that prediction about cold winters. When you disturb the climate you can get paradoxical results because you change mixing...

If, for example, we stop the Gulf Stream, you'll have a terrible time of it in Wales.

I'm by no means convinced of that. The major moderating influence on our climate is the Atlantic itself, not the Gulf Stream. What we're getting currently is a continental air-flow so this about as bad as it gets. The Gulf Stream has some influence in Scotland, and more in Norway, but they're hardy types up there.

If a strongly negative AO becomes more common then we'll just get the winters we used to get twenty years ago. As a gardener I really don't mind : the warm wet winters we've had in recent years has led to an almighty slug problem. This year my carrots, beans and beetroot might stand a chance.

 

[skeptsci]

Why do all the "believers" rush to bash anyone who disagrees with them??? Why are people who disagree called "deniers"? It's almost like saying Jesus is not real and all the "believers" come rushing in to repel the attack of the deniers.

Someones data could be wrong. The only one whose data has been shown to have been tampered with is the "believers" data.

In my life I have seen predictions of impending ice age and firestorms. I think I will be a skeptic on this issue. I have yet to be convinced. Yes the "believers" will now call me a "denier". I can live with that.

There is no doubt that many major scientists from the climatology area have given up to the political temptations. Especially in the anthropogenic role of GW. They became the spear head of a political campaign. They exhibit behavior reminiscent of the one of Church associated "scientists" back circa 400 years ago, God (=politicians) sent truthers and the "deniers". If, in the coming decade, they are proved wrong by nature, it will be fun to watch them first fighting back violently then inventing myriad ways to climb down the huge trees they have climbed. The very sad thing is the irrevocable damage they have already caused (and will cause) to science and scientists' reputation in the lay public eye.

 

[BenBurch]

So, skeptsci, you allege a Conspiracy?

 

[bobdroege7]

There is no doubt that many major scientists from the climatology area have given up to the political temptations. Especially in the anthropogenic role of GW. They became the spear head of a political campaign. They exhibit behavior reminiscent of the one of Church associated "scientists" back circa 400 years ago, God (=politicians) sent truthers and the "deniers". If, in the coming decade, they are proved wrong by nature, it will be fun to watch them first fighting back violently then inventing myriad ways to climb down the huge trees they have climbed. The very sad thing is the irrevocable damage they have already caused (and will cause) to science and scientists' reputation in the lay public eye.

But what if they are right?

 

[varwoche]

So, skeptsci, you allege a Conspiracy?

The thing is, posters will clearly lay out the elements of a CT. But when you ask them, it's "Who me?".

I rather enjoy the "There is no doubt" part.

 

[BenBurch]

But what if they are right?

If you believe that is true, and then DO NOT get political about it to try to change it, you'd be a sociopath, right?

 

[lomiller]

The right wing of US politics has taken the view that the scientists have got this one wrong. This means that any support for or claim based on the science contradicts their political dogma and they consider it an attack on that dogma. Since anything that attacks their political dogma must be political itself they label anything based on the published science as political.

 

[Pixel42]

If, in the coming decade, they are proved wrong by nature, it will be fun to watch them first fighting back violently then inventing myriad ways to climb down the huge trees they have climbed. The very sad thing is the irrevocable damage they have already caused (and will cause) to science and scientists' reputation in the lay public eye.

If instead they are proved right by nature, as is far more likely, how do you think the deniers will react? Do you think they will admit they were wrong and apologise profusely for sabotaging efforts to mitigate AGW and hence for causing irrevocable damage to the environment? Or will they first fight violently then invent myriad ways to climb down the huge trees they have climbed?

Fortunately very few of them are scientists, so there won't be much damage to science and scientists' reputation to worry about. I doubt many people will consider that to be much consolation, however.

 

[Lurker]

If instead they are proved right by nature, as is far more likely, how do you think the deniers will react? Do you think they will admit they were wrong and apologise profusely for sabotaging efforts to mitigate AGW and hence for causing irrevocable damage to the environment? Or will they first fight violently then invent myriad ways to climb down the huge trees they have climbed?

Fortunately very few of them are scientists, so there won't be much damage to science and scientists' reputation to worry about. I doubt many people will consider that to be much consolation, however.

Yes, it will be an interesting turnaround. A few years back I engaged some deniers in the debate and they agreed that there was global warming but scoffed at the notion that it was in any way caused by humans.

Today, they deny all global warming, human or nonhuman caused because they have latched on to the sort of date presented in this thread. Odd how they have done a 180 on whether global warming is ocurring or not. I have not re-engaged them to ask them about this discrepency but I am sure they will have excuses. I look forward to what they will say 5-10 years from now as further evidence is compiled. What will they say then?