• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Global Warming Heretic

Megalodon said:
For those of you who are not reality impaired, here's how the models fared with the real world observations...
Click to expand...

OK ... but can we simply look at 10 year data smoothing from the following intervals? (From post 32)

1968 - 1978
1978 - 1988
1988 - 1998
1998 - 2008
 
Just thinking said:
OK ... but can we simply look at 10 year data smoothing from the following intervals? (From post 32)

1968 - 1978
1978 - 1988
1988 - 1998
1998 - 2008
Click to expand...
Sure. But you will probably find it more interesting to extend your view to a full century, not just the last 40 years (why may that time frame have been chosen?). You'll find a pretty regular 30-year pattern:

2000 - 20??: cooling <- AGW: accelerated warming 0.2C per decade expected!
1970 - 2000: warming <- AGW
1940 - 1970: cooling
1910 - 1940: warming

It is useful to remember that the modern global warming concept refers to a 20-year period only, from 1978 to 1998, which is not a long period in a climatic context. The present period since 1998 without increasing temperatures is already half as long.

Please see interesting "Climate Reflections" here:

http://www.climate4you.com/
 
Last edited:
Herzblut said:
Right?
Click to expand...
Wrong. The last few years are well within the range expected for an underlying trend of a fraction-of-a-degree increase per decade in a measurement which is subject to noise of several times that per year, as the graph Megaladon posted clearly shows.

Are you going to answer my question? Are you prepared to take the "no further warming" side of the bet described in the link I gave?
 
Just thinking said:
OK ... but can we simply look at 10 year data smoothing from the following intervals? (From post 32)

1968 - 1978
1978 - 1988
1988 - 1998
1998 - 2008
Click to expand...

You can but it’s not a very good way of doing it. 10 years trends are to short.

The shorter the trend line the large the impact the endpoints have. The natural year to year variation can be as high as +/- 0.5 deg, which can completely hide a 0.2 deg/decade trend if you only look at a 10 ear period. With that in mind, the largest El Nino event ever recorded happened in 1998, exactly on your chosen endpoint.
 
Pixel42 said:
Wrong. The last few years are well within the range expected for an underlying trend of a fraction-of-a-degree increase per decade in a measurement which is subject to noise of several times that per year, as the graph Megaladon posted clearly shows.
Click to expand...
Prove me wrong.
 
From the "smoothing" shown in post 42 it appears to resemble a rough sinusoidal pattern, which may be the reason some are claiming we may be seeing signs of global cooling on the horizon. (I chose 10-year intervals for no particular reason other than to demonstrate another way to look at the data.) And yes, 10 years is too short a time frame in and of itself ... but when expanded to several 10 year intervals we can see some shifting of rate-of-change.

But I have another question ... and I'll try to be as clear as I can in explaining it. Let's suppose that it's now somewhere between 1950 and 1960, yet we have at our disposal the computing technology of present day 2009. And we also have at our disposal the past 50 or so years of climate/temperature data as we now have (from 1900 to 1950/1960). And finally, we also have 2009 climate software models that can be run on the earlier data. What would it predict the global climate to look like in 2009 as compared to what we are today experiencing? How close would it be? Has anyone tried this?
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
You can but it’s not a very good way of doing it. 10 years trends are to short.

The shorter the trend line the large the impact the endpoints have. The natural year to year variation can be as high as +/- 0.5 deg, which can completely hide a 0.2 deg/decade trend if you only look at a 10 ear period. With that in mind, the largest El Nino event ever recorded happened in 1998, exactly on your chosen endpoint.
Click to expand...

As you can see from my graph above, it doesn't even matter if 98 is one of the endpoints. The trend in the last 10 years is still positive. Funny that Herzblut managed to miss that.
 
Herzblut said:
Sure. But you will probably find it more interesting to extend your view to a full century, not just the last 40 years (why may that time frame have been chosen?). You'll find a pretty regular 30-year pattern:

2000 - 20??: cooling <- AGW: accelerated warming 0.2C per decade expected!
1970 - 2000: warming <- AGW
1940 - 1970: cooling
1910 - 1940: warming

It is useful to remember that the modern global warming concept refers to a 20-year period only, from 1978 to 1998, which is not a long period in a climatic context. The present period since 1998 without increasing temperatures is already half as long.

Please see interesting "Climate Reflections" here:

http://www.climate4you.com/
Click to expand...

Somewhat related - by using 30 year averages of climate, a sinosoidal line of world temperature such as this may be easily generated.




This graph illustrates various methods of lying which are commonly used by the Alarmists in pushing their agenda. Red is "20th century warming", which starts at a low and ends at a high - properly done it would be like the blue line - starting at a midpoint and ending at a midpoint. Purple is the "Recent unprecedented warming".

Unfortunately for warmers, we are now on the right hand thick black line segment, which destroys the arguments based on the purple line. Now all they have left is "but warming will result with a vengence in (2009, 2010, 2015, 2030, 2030-2050)" which only puts a reasonable person back into chuckling and saying:

"Eh? That old Sliding Ten Year Timetable of Doom" again, huh? Ain't you learned?"

PS: Warmers should think carefully about their arguments before spasmicly blurting that the overall trend of the line is upward.:clap:

And Warmers should apologize for lying or supporting lying about the trendlines as illustrated.
 
Last edited:
Just thinking said:
From the "smoothing" shown in post 42 it appears to resemble a rough sinusoidal pattern, which may be the reason some are claiming we may be seeing signs of global cooling on the horizon. (I chose 10-year intervals for no particular reason other than to demonstrate another way to look at the data.) And yes, 10 years is too short a time frame in and of itself ... but when expanded to several 10 year intervals we can see some shifting of rate-of-change.
Click to expand...

What you are seeing is mostly noise.

28149ca382195633.jpg


Just thinking said:
But I have another question ... and I'll try to be as clear as I can in explaining it. Let's suppose that it's now somewhere between 1950 and 1960, yet we have at our disposal the computing technology of present day 2009. And we also have at our disposal the past 50 or so years of climate/temperature data as we now have (from 1900 to 1950/1960). And finally, we also have 2009 climate software models that can be run on the earlier data. What would it predict the global climate to look like in 2009 as compared to what we are today experiencing? How close would it be? Has anyone tried this?
Click to expand...

Climate models don’t predict this years weather they predict the trend in multiyear data. Almost all model runs start in the 50’s at least, often earlier and do a good job of reproducing climate trends over that period.
 
Herzblut said:
Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
Only time will prove you right or wrong. All that can be said at the moment is that the last few years are within the expected noise range of the predicted warming trend, so your categorical statement that warming has stopped is unsupportable. No definite conclusion as to whether warming has or has not stopped can yet be drawn.

Are you going to answer my question? Are you prepared to take the "no further warming" side of the bet described in the link I gave?
 
lomiller said:
Climate models don’t predict this years weather they predict the trend in multiyear data. Almost all model runs start in the 50’s at least, often earlier and do a good job of reproducing climate trends over that period.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my question --- I'll admit I find it hard to put into words. What I am looking for is the overall climate condition of 2009 as predicted from my scenario as compared to what we see today. I'm interested in seeing how our climate modeling software works for other time intervals --- those that we can actually compare the predicted forecasts with empirical data.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
What you are seeing is mostly noise.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/28149ca382195633.jpg[/qimg]

Climate models don’t predict this years weather they predict the trend in multiyear data. Almost all model runs start in the 50’s at least, often earlier and do a good job of reproducing climate trends over that period.
Click to expand...

Although that graph makes the point quite nicely, it's sea surface temperature, not the global temperature. For that the more adequate would be this



Which also illustrates what Pixel42 is talking about.
 
Just thinking said:
....Let's suppose that it's now somewhere between 1950 and 1960, yet we have at our disposal the computing technology of present day 2009. And we also have at our disposal the past 50 or so years of climate/temperature data as we now have (from 1900 to 1950/1960). And finally, we also have 2009 climate software models that can be run on the earlier data. What would it predict the global climate to look like in 2009 as compared to what we are today experiencing? How close would it be? Has anyone tried this?
Click to expand...
Since this is a good question, expect the resident rabid Warmers to derail, insult, misrepresent, and misdirect.

What your question points to is given some particular CO2 sensitivity, and the increases in CO2 up to 1950-60, what would that have implied for the coming decades? Now it happens that CO2 has a log function, where each additional increase has less effect. Whether the effect is strong, weak or insignificant to climate is debated.

Any "Testable Hypotheses" by our Warmer friends on this matter? (with numbers, of course).
 
Just thinking said:
That wasn't my question --- I'll admit I find it hard to put into words. What I am looking for is the overall climate condition of 2009 as predicted from my scenario as compared to what we see today. I'm interested in seeing how our climate modeling software works for other time intervals --- those that we can actually compare the predicted forecasts with empirical data.
Click to expand...

This called a hindcast and it's done routinely as part of almost every climate model run and the results are consistent with observations.

Again though, climate models don’t predict single year weather they predict long term trends, so they will not predict the abnormally warm 1998 El Nino year or even the cool 2008 La Nina year, but they will get the distribution of how common such years are approximately right.
 
plumjam said:
I'd hazard a guess that Dyson has at least 20% more intelligence and integrity than anyone on this forum.
I've noticed a similar reaction to him that there was to Anthony Flew.
Well.. they're both old. If you're old you're not gonna be bothered about fitting in to the acceptable cosy consensus.
If you're old you're going to be more liable to just speak the truth. Think deathbed confessions.
Click to expand...

You think there's a conspiracy of scientists to deny science?

Deathbed confessions are not a good way to advance science.
 
Pixel42 said:
Herzblut: are you aware of this proposal to use the temperature record between now and 2015 to determine whether warming has indeed stopped (or even reversed) or is continuing as predicted by AGW:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

Do you agree that this is a fair test of both sides' predictions?

It might be fun to start a thread and have everyone place their bets, and then bump it once a year when the previous year's average global temperature is announced to see whether it has decided the outcome. It would be a change from all the usual backbiting and it would be nice to know that this argument, which has already been going on for so many years with no apparent end in sight, will indeed eventually be decided. (Even though in the worst case scenario it might be 2028 before there is a definite conclusion).
Click to expand...
I've cited that article several times in these forums but no "sceptic" appears at all interested in placing a bet. Note that Tamino's bet is very generous to "Coolers": the trend does not need to go downward for them to "win"; it has to merely fall below the lower bound of the projected rising trend.
 
Last edited:
Herzblut said:
The AGW predictions have been empirically falsified. There has been no accelerated ("unprecedented" :)) temperature increase between 1981 and 2005.

Actually, warming has stopped in 1998. This is obvious from the diagram above. Despite the funny fudge bars frantically fumbled into the diagram by a highly motivated but equally irritated coeval.

Right?
Click to expand...
Only a cretin would not understand what those "funny fudge bars" are and why they are perfectly valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom