Global Cooling in 2009 (375 Sources)

Thanks Poptech. I have seen the light. Now I know that it's freezing cold in January in the North hemisphere. I would never have guessed.
Apart from local weather reports, anything more substantial to prove that global weather is cooling? Like a trend over the last 20 years of temperatures going down? I mean, not just last year?

And stop joking about peoples/animals suffering from cold, it's tasteless.
 
Poptech said:
Another 21st century global cooling denialist I see.
Click to expand...

My default position in matters I am ignorant about is with expert consensus but I am open to alternative arguments, especially if I can see the type of criticism they attract and how they deal with it.

Your performance here has been unconvincing.
 
Aussie Thinker said:
The simple question here which no seems willing to address (or even contemplate it seems) is the CURRENT trend is flat or down !
Click to expand...
There is no statistically significant evidence of any change to the warming trend of the last 40-50 years. You have simply fallen for a line of pseudo-science aimed at taking in people with minimal critical thinking skills.
 
MattusMaximus said:
I think they're smarter than that. I'm just of the opinion that they're very cynically attempting to manipulate the information to suit their purposes. This is, however, just my opinion.
Click to expand...

"Attempting to manipulate"? Hell, they're (or at least, he's) reveling in it.
 
Last edited:
Aussie Thinker said:
The simple question here which no seems willing to address (or even contemplate it seems) is the CURRENT trend is flat or down !

I don’t care where you start it from, the CURRENT is the last few years !

ALL Doomsayer graphs from 10 years ago pointed to a CONTINUED warming over this current period.

It ISN’T happening.

The ONLY predictive graph I can remember (from at least 1 years ago) that has remained close to actual trends was POPTECHS !!!

That’s hilarious.. and Megaladon even reposted it above.. check its trend !

Its goes up and down.. just like the temperatures seems to do !

It doesn’t even deny an overall warming trend.. just makes a joke of a catastrophic trend .. and does NOT correlate with CO2 levels !
Click to expand...

How about this?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/#more-2108
 
Aussie Thinker said:
ALL Doomsayer graphs from 10 years ago pointed to a CONTINUED warming over this current period.
Click to expand...

Check fsol's link, it's quite an interesting read

The ONLY predictive graph I can remember (from at least 1 years ago) that has remained close to actual trends was POPTECHS !!!
Click to expand...

Actually it's mhaze's, although he never really disclosed the origin of it.

That’s hilarious.. and Megaladon even reposted it above.. check its trend !
Click to expand...

There is no trend. the left part of that "sinusoid" is based on fantasy data, while the right side doesn't fit the period of the left. There is no predictive power there, only wishful thinking and make-believe.

Then there's the fact that the real world data has widely overshot the confidence intervals, in the way predicted by current AGW thinking.

Mhaze knows all this, which is why he doesn't discuss the graph any longer

But he still posts it from time to time, because he knows that some will fall for it hook, line and sinker...
 
a_unique_person said:
Could you give me a link to that?
Click to expand...

You can check it on the graph itself... I overlayed the NCDC temperature data on it to try to figure out how reliable the temp data was to begin with. Most of the last decade is well over the confidence intervals, and are even above what mhaze called the alarmist trend.


 
Every time it snows some people say "So much for Global Warming- chuckle chuckle" (we got 2 feet of snow in NJ the other week and I heard that sort of comment a lot)

But (if I understand it correctly at all) if the climate is out of control we SHOULD experience wild highs and lows. Summers and winters will become more extreme- a "mild" Summer of room-temperatures is actually an extreme, because Summer's supposed to be hot.

Extra-cold years should be a part of Global Warming as much as extra-hot years, cause the climate's going out of control. So a cold year or a big snowstorm doesn't "disprove" global warming at all...

(and they call ME a "Denier"!!!)
 
Megalodon said:
You can check it on the graph itself... I overlayed the NCDC temperature data on it to try to figure out how reliable the temp data was to begin with. Most of the last decade is well over the confidence intervals, and are even above what mhaze called the alarmist trend.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2814a53603d1959a.jpg
Click to expand...

For some reason, people concentrate on intervals that are far too short to have any meaning. The consistently high temperatures of the past decade have a clear signal to me.
 
Bob from NJ said:
Every time it snows some people say "So much for Global Warming- chuckle chuckle" (we got 2 feet of snow in NJ the other week and I heard that sort of comment a lot)

But (if I understand it correctly at all) if the climate is out of control we SHOULD experience wild highs and lows. Summers and winters will become more extreme- a "mild" Summer of room-temperatures is actually an extreme, because Summer's supposed to be hot.

Extra-cold years should be a part of Global Warming as much as extra-hot years, cause the climate's going out of control. So a cold year or a big snowstorm doesn't "disprove" global warming at all...

(and they call ME a "Denier"!!!)
Click to expand...

It was my understanding that much of the increase in global temperatures to date and anticipated into the future is down to less cold winters rather than warmer summers.

What is interesting is that those who are advocating for a greater role in solar factors in climate variation have been forecasting new global ice age. Recent years of a halt in the trend increase in temps could be either pause before resumption of a positive trend, or a peak before a period of decline. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
 
a_unique_person said:
For some reason, people concentrate on intervals that are far too short to have any meaning. The consistently high temperatures of the past decade have a clear signal to me.
Click to expand...

That is fine. But I believe the key is the trend. And we are now getting long enough periods of data with no measurable trend to be able to make more confident probability satements (the lack of trend can be statistically significantly different from that suggested by the warming hypothesis).

We should keep watching the trend.
 
fsol said:
How about this?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/#more-2108
Click to expand...

That analysis doesn't provide any information on trends.

What it does is suggest that the data from 1979 to 2000 indicate under a naive (i.e. no climate theory involved) least squares model that global temps by 2010 might be expected (with about 95% confidence) to fall in a range of 2000 temp plus 0.45 and minus 0.35.

In effect, all it shows is that there is sufficient unexplained variation in the data under the model used to expect just about any range of outcomes for temperature anomolies over the future. But we know that. What we want to know about is the estimated range of uncertainty of our explained variation (i.e. the trend, or slope of the solid line) and to see how new data compares.

Graphically, that would mean those charts should have had a fan like extension from 2000 against which 2000-2010 measured trens could be plotted.

Anything can be shown by statistics. If your objective is to test whether there has been a significant change in a measurable trend in such a time series that analysis will not do it.

The problem in this case is that the author appears to have sufficient knowledge to understand that, which makes me question the purpose of the article.
 
Last edited:
Geckko said:
That analysis doesn't provide any information on trends.

What it does is suggest that the data from 1979 to 2000 indicate under a naive (i.e. no climate theory involved) least squares model that global temps by 2010 might be expected (with about 95% confidence) to fall in a range of 2000 temp plus 0.45 and minus 0.35.

In effect, all it shows is that there is sufficient unexplained variation in the data under the model used to expect just about any range of outcomes for temperature anomolies over the future. But we know that. What we want to know about is the estimated range of uncertainty of our explained variation (i.e. the trend, or slope of the solid line) and to see how new data compares.

Graphically, that would mean those charts should have had a fan like extension from 2000 against which 2000-2010 measured trens could be plotted.

Anything can be shown by statistics. If your objective is to test whether there has been a significant change in a measurable trend in such a time series that analysis will not do it.

The problem in this case is that the author appears to have sufficient knowledge to understand that, which makes me question the purpose of the article.
Click to expand...

A bit like this sort of thing?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/exogenous-factors/


My initial post was simply to show Aussie Thinker that mhaze's stupid graph, and his conclusion from it, isn't all that. I think the post I linked to was sufficient to do that.
 
Geckko said:
That is fine. But I believe the key is the trend. And we are now getting long enough periods of data with no measurable trend to be able to make more confident probability satements (the lack of trend can be statistically significantly different from that suggested by the warming hypothesis).

We should keep watching the trend.
Click to expand...

What trend? The trend in the last hour, week, month, year?
 
a_unique_person said:
What trend? The trend in the last hour, week, month, year?
Click to expand...

Over any period.

But, what we can say about the measure for the trend we get will depend on the relationship between the explained and unexplained variation. And that will be a function of both the size and nature of the variation we observe and the number of data points (time period) we have.

If we are looking at monthly data for temperature anomilies, most analysis I see indicates that the last 7-8 years of data has been sufficient to produce measured trends satistically significantly different from zero (on the negative side). And periods of up to 15 years fail to produce measured trends that are statistically significantly different from zero (a change from prior periods when there was).

And that is why statistics can prove just about anything. If, over 2000-2010 we have had the warmest decade since measurements became available, this indicates only that we must have had some positive trends (statistically significant or not) during prior decades, 1990-2000 and 1980-1990.

Over 2000-2010 we may have had a negative trend (statistically significant or not) and maybe had one over part of the prior decade. That could still have left us with the "hottest decade ever" AND a negative trend over, say the last 15 years. To determine what exactly we did get and whether there is any statistical significance to it we need to analyse the trend. Back to my earlier posts on that point.
 
Last edited:
fsol said:
A bit like this sort of thing?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/exogenous-factors/


My initial post was simply to show Aussie Thinker that mhaze's stupid graph, and his conclusion from it, isn't all that. I think the post I linked to was sufficient to do that.
Click to expand...

I had something more like this in mind.

HadCRUTSince2001-500x341.jpg


So this shows that this data had a measured negative trend over the period shown. What we can say about it statistically at a confidence of 95% is:

  • It appears statistically significantly different to a trend of +0.2 degrees per decade.
  • It does not appear statistically different from zero.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom