Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[r-j]

oh i might learn something new here.

how does one adjust the data to account for pollutants PDO clouds etc?

and why do you say that measurements of temperature do not match what we see in global temp data? got an example?

You must be skipping over posts.

Using the trend generator from http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php your problem is obvious.
This is not the adjusted to remove the influence of known extraneous factors el Nino, aerosols, and solar variation - lower-troposphere data from UAH.
Not realizing this could make people think that you are "some sort of idiot" .

You need the other trend generator to explore the Foster & Rahmstorf adjusted data. This can produces a similar graph with "Trend: 0.0309 ±0.0209 °C/year (2σ)".

I didn't even know it was possible to remove "the influence of known extraneous factors" from the global temperature data. This explains why the measurements don't match the graphs sometimes.

And you thought I wasn't able to learn anything.

 

[Pixel42]

The NCDC data is claimed, by you, not to contain enough information to be able to determine if they are "statistically significant".

No-one said this.

You and others claim that if you can't determine if they are "statistically significant" because they do not give enough information.

No-one has said this either.

The NCDC data is perfectly adequate to calculate whether there are any statistically significant trends. It's just that the tool their website provides (unlike the one on the SkS site) does not calculate statistical significance for you, so if you want to know if the trends you're seeing are statistically significant you have to do it yourself.

You then say, and I quote, "trends need to be statistically significant to use them".

This is true.

I then describe that you said the NCDC data is useless for creating a trend. And then you say, and I quote, "No one has told you trends are useless.".

No-one has.

That you can't see this, once again, priceless.

That you still haven't grasped the most basic principles of statistics despite umpteen attempts to teach them to you is what's priceless. For the record, this is the point at which I give up trying.

 

[r-j]

OK, because you spent so much time explaining how to calculate which NCDC data is useful, and you told us how to do it.

 

[DC]

You must be skipping over posts.



I didn't even know it was possible to remove "the influence of known extraneous factors" from the global temperature data. This explains why the measurements don't match the graphs sometimes.

And you thought I wasn't able to learn anything.

ah in this particular paper indeed known influences were removed, and yes, when you can quantify effects you can calculate them out of the data. a very good paper. a very interesting approach, but that is not standard procedere. and it does not explain why measurements do not match the graphs, it might in their graph but not in graphs generally....

amazing that you didn't know that. very telling.

 

[lomiller]

That is at least partly right, but very wrong in essence.

There are numerous examples of claims made about trends, and time periods. Tamino (poor tamino) even had his ten year trends drug into the fray. (wasn't he being deliberately wrong to make a point?)

No he was being deliberately right and making a valid point.

He went through the process of calculating whether the trends are statistically significant or not. This is exactly what you are supposed to be doing.

 

[lomiller]

I didn't even know it was possible to remove "the influence of known extraneous factors" from the global temperature data. This explains why the measurements don't match the graphs sometimes.

And you thought I wasn't able to learn anything.

Foster & Rhamstorf accounts for the major sources of natural variation in the data leaving just the trend created by external forcing.

Of course it doesn’t match the raw temperature data that includes all this natural variation. Hasn’t it been the argument of deniers that it’s this natural variation that is “really creating the trend”? Why now are you opposed to removing these natural influences?

 

[lomiller]

OK, because you spent so much time explaining how to calculate which NCDC data is useful, and you told us how to do it.

You can either do the full calculation like Tamino did for the 10 year trends in my earlier link, or you can use rules of thumb like 30 years for global temperatures.

 

[r-j]

Statistical significance is not “pure nonsense

I see the problem. Let me rephrase it to help you comprehend.

No one has told you trends are useless.

Pure nonsense.

What you have been told is that trends need to be statistically significant to use them.

The NCDC data is claimed, by you, not to contain enough information to be able to determine if they are "statistically significant". You and others claim that if you can't determine if they are "statistically significant" because they do not give enough information. You then say, and I quote, "trends need to be statistically significant to use them".

I then describe that you said the NCDC data is useless for creating a trend. And then you say, and I quote, "No one has told you trends are useless.".

That you can't see this, once again, priceless.

Does that make it clearer?

Statistical significance is not “pure nonsense

Nobody said that.

Neither I nor anyone else has said any such thing.

Nobody said you did. Strawman

There is sufficient data available to determine if a trend is statistically significant or not.

Which is exactly what I have asked bout, multiple times, in regards to the NCDC data. The avoidance of simply answering direct questions is noted as well.

If somebody, like pixel, says a trend isn't valid, I ask what would be valid. The usual p value is the only response. I asked again, about the NCDC graphs, the data, the trends, and it was avoided. It still is. Rather than answering a direct question, there is all this run around nd hand waving and acting all smarter than, but no answer still.

It's not even that hard.

Is that valid? Does it show a trend for the US that August temperatures are rising? If not, why?

Does that show that over the last hundred years, winter temperatures in Florida have become colder? If not, why?

It's not like the questions are hard to follow. Why all the evasion?

 

[r-j]

Before anyone starts frothing off again, the questions are specific, and bout a clear subject. Don't take the warming August as global, nor the colder winters in Florida as indicating an Ice Age cometh.

I guess if we can't communicate about something as hard and fast as a hundred years of good weather data, the global climate might be a bit difficult.

 

[DC]

I see the problem. Let me rephrase it to help you comprehend.



Does that make it clearer?

Nobody said that.

Nobody said you did. Strawman

Which is exactly what I have asked bout, multiple times, in regards to the NCDC data. The avoidance of simply answering direct questions is noted as well.

If somebody, like pixel, says a trend isn't valid, I ask what would be valid. The usual p value is the only response. I asked again, about the NCDC graphs, the data, the trends, and it was avoided. It still is. Rather than answering a direct question, there is all this run around nd hand waving and acting all smarter than, but no answer still.

It's not even that hard.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1038&pictureid=7585[/qimg]

Is that valid? Does it show a trend for the US that August temperatures are rising? If not, why?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1038&pictureid=7581[/qimg]

Does that show that over the last hundred years, winter temperatures in Florida have become colder? If not, why?

It's not like the questions are hard to follow. Why all the evasion?

wow you did really not get the whole debate about statistical significance? really? what about it did you not understand?

 

[lomiller]

I see the problem. Let me rephrase it to help you comprehend.

Pure nonsense. Please pay attention to what you are being told.
No one but you has said trends are useless, we’ve repeatedly told you that the statistically insignificant trends you keep presenting are useless.

Does that make it clearer?

It’s just as wrong as it was every other time you’ve said it.

You are the only one who has said the NCDC data is useless. EVERYONE has told you that you are using it incorrectly by not paying attention to statistical significance and other time series pitfalls in the periods you are cherry picking.

Nobody said that.

What you have been told is that trends need to be statistically significant to use them.

Pure nonsense.

 

[lomiller]

Before anyone starts frothing off again, the questions are specific, and bout a clear subject.

No, your “question” is not clear. You started off begging the question asking “if winters are not getting colder why scientists are trying to explain colder winters?”

Winters are not getting colder, cherry picking a few intervals where linear regression shows a regional cooling trend wouldn’t change this. First of all a regional trend wouldn’t tell us anything useful to begin with, secondly to even know if there is a real regional trend you would need to pick a period long enough to be statistically significant and short enough for a linear regression to be relevant.

 

[Pixel42]

Is that valid? Does it show a trend for the US that August temperatures are rising? If not, why?

I have no idea. If I cared enough about the answer I would find a free programme or spreadsheet which calculates statistical significance (I'm sure there are plenty on the web), paste in the data that the NCDC tool helpfully provides underneath the graphs it generates, and work it out. But I don't.

Does that show that over the last hundred years, winter temperatures in Florida have become colder? If not, why?

I have no idea. If I cared enough about the answer I would find a free programme or spreadsheet which calculates statistical significance (I'm sure there are plenty on the web), paste in the data that the NCDC tool helpfully provides underneath the graphs it generates, and work it out. But I don't.

It's not like the questions are hard to follow. Why all the evasion?

You are the one who has been making assertions like "winters in Florida are getting colder". You should not have made such assertions without doing the maths first. Now you want us to do the maths for you? Get lost.

 

[r-j]

what about it did you not understand?

I keep asking the same question, and everyone keeps avoiding answering it. Or explaining why they can't answer.

One more time

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1038&pictureid=7585

Is that valid? Does it show a trend for the US that August temperatures are rising? If not, why?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1038&pictureid=7581

Does that show that over the last hundred years, winter temperatures in Florida have become colder? If not, why?

It's not like the questions are hard to follow. Why all the evasion?

 

[lomiller]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1038&pictureid=7585

Is that valid? Does it show a trend for the US that August temperatures are rising? If not, why?

Re-read every you have been told for the last few pages. If you want to know whether this shows you Aug temperatures are increasing you need to find out if the trend line is statistically significant.

If the period covered were 30 years rather than 20 I’d say it probably indicates a warming trend based on a 30 year rule of thumb but I would keep in mind that a rule of thumb could still be incorrect.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1038&pictureid=7581

Does that show that over the last hundred years, winter temperatures in Florida have become colder? If not, why?

Probably not. You would have to apply statistical tests to know for sure, but visually it doesn’t look like the data follows a linear trend and therefore modeling is linear would not be appropriate.

For a shorter period a linear approximation could be valid, but then you need to be careful to choose a period long enough to be statistically significant.

I

It's not like the questions are hard to follow. Why all the evasion?

The answers haven’t been hard to follow either. There is no evasion, only your inability to understand relatively simple concepts in statistics.

 

[DC]

I keep asking the same question, and everyone keeps avoiding answering it. Or explaining why they can't answer.

One more time

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1038&pictureid=7585

Is that valid? Does it show a trend for the US that August temperatures are rising? If not, why?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1038&pictureid=7581

Does that show that over the last hundred years, winter temperatures in Florida have become colder? If not, why?

It's not like the questions are hard to follow. Why all the evasion?

i would have to get more information to calculate the significance with a programm and as i am not used to do that i would propably do it wrong. but only with the pictures you cant say, its not something you just estimate by looking at a graph.

 

[Barking Spyder]

Is there any one site that actually concentrates on just the science of the subject of AGW and does away with the politics, and alarmism? Most of the ones I have seen seem to be very polarized one way or the the other. Based on the little I have read so far it seems that there is more than a little room for doubt. I thought that plants would just take in the CO2 and make more Oxygen and the whole thing was self regulating.

 

[aleCcowaN]

UhHuh.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/02/meet_the_new_climate_deniers_117759.html

Sorry, pal. Not much time to devote to your post.

You basically like to ... refute something? ... using a press article cum editorial comment that:

• Doesn't deal with science but speak tangentially about it
• Doesn't cite any scientific works but cites scientists out of context
• Call names in a fashion similar to those of the German Democratic Republic calling the Usian culture and government antidemocratic, or Fidel Castro calling "free democratic elections" his Cuban ballot-using gatherings.

So, you have nothing, like always.


The most interesting thing is that my intuition tells me since many years ago that the real situation is about like it is described in all those "prematurely spread" papers. I have had here discussions about that anything but calm ones, something you haven't notice because you come here every now and then to drop a morsel of climatic gossiping and you go away immediately.


That's the difference between me -and most of the sound people in this thread- and a denialist: I am not to indulge myself some idea, even when it comes clothed as a scientific product, just because I'd like it to be true or I think it probably is true. Science doesn't work that way. Epistemological hedonists DO.

 

[r-j]

Is there any one site that actually concentrates on just the science of the subject of AGW and does away with the politics, and alarmism?

Not that anyone can locate.

Most of the ones I have seen seem to be very polarized one way or the the other. Based on the little I have read so far it seems that there is more than a little room for doubt.

There's a huge amount of skepticism over the wild alarmist propaganda, as well as much skepticism about the motives of anyone who even asks questions. If it was about science, it wouldn't be a flamefest.

I thought that plants would just take in the CO2 and make more Oxygen and the whole thing was self regulating.

Plants are reported to be growing faster. Peat bogs it seems are able to vastly increase their CO2 use (and growth) when it's warmer and there is greater CO2. Much is unknown bout plants reactions to higher CO2. The only thing we know for sure is at 2000ppm plants grow like crazy, it it's warm.

There is much concern that high CO2 might reduce nutrition in food crops. Obviously experiments to see if this is true have been impossible to perform.

Many people become cynical and sarcastic when faced with global warmers.

 

[uke2se]

Is there any one site that actually concentrates on just the science of the subject of AGW and does away with the politics, and alarmism?

You never did answer any of the questions regarding what you characterize as "alarmism", so I doubt anyone is able to answer this new question of yours to your content. Of course there are sites that deal with the science, but as with any subject with a contingent of deniers, there's going to be politics involved. I very much doubt you have the capacity to understand the science involved, just based on your contribution to this thread, so I'd say you'd be best off looking at this.

Most of the ones I have seen seem to be very polarized one way or the the other.

That's because this is a polarized issue. Either you accept science, or you deny it. There's no middle ground.

Based on the little I have read so far it seems that there is more than a little room for doubt.

Then what you have read has been a load of tosh.

I thought that plants would just take in the CO2 and make more Oxygen and the whole thing was self regulating.

Obviously you thought wrong.