Australian Politics Forum - Not "climate change"

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #285 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 5:46pm

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 5:39pm:

It did not show what you claimed.

Quote:

If the current non warming/ cooling trend lasts a few more years

Was this just referring to Grendel's 12 month cooling 'trend'? Or was it in reference to what you said about 1998?

No it goes back at least 10 years - a bit long to dismiss as noise or a frosty morning!

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53259 At my desk.	Re: Not "climate change" Reply #286 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 6:01pm I have not seen any evidence of such a cooling trend. I have asked Grendel for it on several occasions. All he could come up with was a 'trend' based on two data points separated by only 12 months.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #287 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 6:12pm

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 6:01pm:

I have not seen any evidence of such a cooling trend. I have asked Grendel for it on several occasions. All he could come up with was a 'trend' based on two data points separated by only 12 months.

No it was a continuous plot over 10 or more years. It's in this thread, bach a few pages.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53259
At my desk.

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #288 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 6:16pm

If you are referring to this one:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227222079/188#188

that is a warming trend, not a cooling trend. You don't get a trend by selecting the two most favourable points, drawing a straight line between them, and ignoring the trend. That is the sort of thing that gives real statisticians a bad name.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #289 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 6:59pm

I have to wonder, going on the previous behaviour of the denialist camp, whether the plethora of scientists that they are claiming as questioning the IPCC report, are arguing against the whole principle of CO2 driven climate change, or whether they have individual beefs with individual studies, but accept the general principle?

We have previously seen scientists quoted by denialists, as supporting their denialist case, denying that was what they were doing, and demanding retractions, and having to try and get their "actual" opinions correctly reported by the denialists.

I don't know if that is the case with this latest paste from Grendel, but it would not surprise me.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #290 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 7:51pm

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 6:16pm:

If you are referring to this one:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227222079/188#188

that is a warming trend, not a cooling trend. You don't get a trend by selecting the two most favourable points, drawing a straight line between them, and ignoring the trend. That is the sort of thing that gives real statisticians a bad name.

It's not a warming trend over the last ten years, and this not an insignificant amount of time. If it goes on much longer questions will be increasingly asked about AGW.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Not "climate change" Reply #291 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 7:59pm Whoosh again eh fd.... How can someone who thinks he's so intelligent recognise an argument but fail to realise it is the one used against him in the first place. ROTFLMAO
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #292 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 9:12pm

pjb05 wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 7:51pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 6:16pm:

If you are referring to this one:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227222079/188#188

that is a warming trend, not a cooling trend. You don't get a trend by selecting the two most favourable points, drawing a straight line between them, and ignoring the trend. That is the sort of thing that gives real statisticians a bad name.

It's not a warming trend over the last ten years, and this not an insignificant amount of time. If it goes on much longer questions will be increasingly asked about AGW.

PJB,

First of all, here is a very simple statistical technique to determine the trend in a piece of data. It is not a matter worth debating by laymen. Take the mean of every four consecutive points and plot a graph using this xbar data. Take the range (difference between the highest and lowest figure of these points and draw control bars based on the maximum and minimum Range at the 95% confidence interval . You can calculate control limits based on 95% confidence limits from the data. You can then determine statistically whether the line shows an increasing or decreasing trend.

In this case, there is actually an increasing trend, however if you read back some of my original posts, there are some comments from the original workers who collected this data. The Hadley data is incomplete in terms of geographical coverage, and they have also since applied corrections to the data based on ENSO data. Applying the corrections, the increasing trend is much more evident without the cyclical variation superimposed.

To simply present this data without qualification is deliberately hiding the truth. There are other sources of global mean temperatures that are more representative. Why choose the least representative data to make a case?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 12^th, 2008 at 9:18pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #293 - Dec 13^th, 2008 at 9:44am

ok. A picture tells a thousand words. I downloaded the data from Hadley - the same data that was used to make the original graph. Incidentally, the temperature anomaly recovered markedly after January 2008. It was just a short term trend (It's called weather)

The graph shows global average temperature anomalies based on annual means, so we despatch with seasonal variations, which could be caused by well - bad weather,

I've gone to a bit of trouble with this so I hope you appreciate the effort. The red line shows the mean of 4 years (like the x bar graph). That's a much better indicator of climate change, but we still have ENSO variations superimposed on an 11 year cycle.

Clearly, the data shows an increasing trend.

By the way, the fact that we're in a period of a few years where the warming trend has subsided somewhat was predicted last year (see the link) The years following 2009 should be doozies. (Maybe even 2009 itself)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/10/2001247.htm

A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 13^th, 2008 at 9:55am by muso »

hadcrut.jpg (31 KB | 43 )

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #294 - Dec 13^th, 2008 at 11:05am

Well it really is preposterous that the denialists can claim the hottest year ever recorded as the benchmark to begin their analysis from.

So because we have not maintained a constant incremental rise from that point, they say we are in a cooling period, they really are a joke, aren't they.

If we do see the predicted higher temps, post '09, I cannot wait for their next round of gobbledy gook.

"Well it is due to the reflection from a certain planetary orbit"

Translation= It's the sun out of Uranus Grin

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #295 - Dec 13^th, 2008 at 11:33am

mozzaok wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 11:05am:

If we do see the predicted higher temps, post '09, I cannot wait for their next round of gobbledy gook.

No - they will claim that it's all part of a natural cycle. What do you bet? If I wanted to deliberately mislead the public, that's the tack I'd be taking.

By the way, don't forget that the data from Hadley is understating the actual warming because it fails to account for certain missing polar data.

According to the NASA GISS data, the warmest year was 2005 and second warmest was 2007. I guess it makes sense in line with the Arctci Ice melting in 2007.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Not "climate change" Reply #296 - Dec 13^th, 2008 at 1:46pm yawn
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53259
At my desk.

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #297 - Dec 13^th, 2008 at 9:30pm

pjb05 wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 7:51pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 6:16pm:

If you are referring to this one:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227222079/188#188

that is a warming trend, not a cooling trend. You don't get a trend by selecting the two most favourable points, drawing a straight line between them, and ignoring the trend. That is the sort of thing that gives real statisticians a bad name.

It's not a warming trend over the last ten years, and this not an insignificant amount of time. If it goes on much longer questions will be increasingly asked about AGW.

Yes it is a warming trend PJ. You can't just pick the two most favourable data points to make a trend from.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Not "climate change" Reply #298 - Dec 14^th, 2008 at 12:05am rotflmao... It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. whoosh.... again it appears.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Not "climate change" Reply #299 - Dec 14^th, 2008 at 6:59am Grendel wrote on Dec 14^th, 2008 at 12:05am: rotflmao... It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. whoosh.... again it appears. Grendel, You have been caught hook, line and sinker. Not only that mate, you've been landed, beheaded, gutted, cleaned, filleted, cooked up and served with parsley and a nice fennel sauce. NPATW
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged