How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[Alric]

Iomiller, I understand that the choice of reference will not change the data, but could you explain how the reference period choice could be a problem?

I guess it seems to me that the reference is a reference; if you say "based upon this reference, this is how the data looks".

Do you mean this:

1. We could chose yesterdays' mean temperature for St. Paul, Minnesota, as our reference.
   
2. We then plot all the data against that reference.
   
3. We have then a nice graph, that shows the data correctly, but it isn't very useful.

What matters is the trend of change. No matter what the base reference is, once you normalize the data it can be put in a graph and analyzed under equal footing. Why would you think it is not useful to see the trend?

 

[Wangler]

What matters is the trend of change. No matter what the base reference is, once you normalize the data it can be put in a graph and analyzed under equal footing. Why would you think it is not useful to see the trend?

I don't mean to imply that I don't think the trend is useful.

For example, with your help I found that the base reference for the data set in question is 1961-1990.

I think that a trend is more insightful when compared to a base reference that is derived from 1961-1990 (as in this paper), as opposed to my example of a one day base reference.

Both comparisons would show a trend, but one is more insightful than the other.

Don't you agree?

 

[lomiller]

What matters is the trend of change. No matter what the base reference is, once you normalize the data it can be put in a graph and analyzed under equal footing. Why would you think it is not useful to see the trend?

Exactly. Current climate isn’t a problem it could be 6 deg warmer or 6 deg cooler and things would be fine because that’s what we would have built our infrastructure and economy for. It’s changes in climate that are the issue and the reference period doesn’t have any impact on the assessment of climate change.

 

[Alric]

I don't mean to imply that I don't think the trend is useful.

For example, with your help I found that the base reference for the data set in question is 1961-1990.

I think that a trend is more insightful when compared to a base reference that is derived from 1961-1990 (as in this paper), as opposed to my example of a one day base reference.

Both comparisons would show a trend, but one is more insightful than the other.

Don't you agree?

Both graphs would look identical. The absolute anomalies will be different but the % chnage between any two points would be identical in both graphs. I do not know why they picked 1961-1990. Maybe because in 1961 more extensive measurements of NH temperature started to be available.

 

[lomiller]

I do not know why they picked 1961-1990. Maybe because in 1961 more extensive measurements of NH temperature started to be available.

Probably because that’s what HadCRU uses.

GISS uses 1951-1980, while the two satellite records RSS and UAH use 1979 – 2000. Its likely most of the individual constructions used either the GISS or HadCRU period for their reference, unless they had some specific reason not to so picking the HadCRU or GISS reference seems logical.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Yes, I understand...if the data more closely bracketed the 0 deg C curve, the far left of the curve would have an even larger anomaly (it would be much higher than the 0 deg C than it is now).

They don't have a reference (that I have found) to their basis for the 0 deg C curve. Yes, they

but how do we know?

Am I the only one who thinks that this is a poor way to construct a graph for a scientific paper?

Eh? I told you what the reference period was, and why this is usual practice for temp graphs. I also provided a link to the PDF. It took me about 2 minutes reading it to find the reference period.

Honestly, what is the problem?

And it should be obvious to anyone with a basic education that using a different baseline has no effect other than to move all the plots up or down in unison. There is no other effect.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Hey, I think I found it!!

(Groan). As I told you yesterday.

 

[Wangler]

(Groan). As I told you yesterday.

Indeed you did, in post #1592, or there abouts.

My bad!

 

[TrueSceptic]

Indeed you did, in post #1592, or there abouts.

My bad!

Sorry about that, but it can get annoying when information is given and apparently ignored.

 

[Wangler]

Sorry about that, but it can get annoying when information is given and apparently ignored.

It's probably very annoying when the same person who ignored the given information keeps blathering:

"where's the information?"

"where's the information?"

So, TrueSceptic, you don't need to apologize, but I do.....sorry about that!

Oh, and a belated thanks for the information, too!