Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 08:20pm PT
|
Found out because they could (not) be replicated Ed. And by the way thanks for your graphic admission in your above plots that there is no global warming , just a relatively short weather change, on our little patch of the planet. As good as it gets, or so it has been said.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 08:24pm PT
|
...you are delusional.
My graphs show what the average temperature anomalies are for different time periods, and nothing more.
How do you conclude that there is no climate change from that?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 08:32pm PT
|
Isn't it you that said only weather change over a minimum period of thirty years can be considered as climate change? The only plot on your graph over a thirty year period is the red line which according to you shows a global cooling climate on our little patch of the planet. Thanks for your contribution and could you please step on gland mams dikk.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 08:53pm PT
|
it wasn't Chiloe's plot, it was NOAA's plot... but...
here it is, I provided it up thread, with the average for the time period plotted on it...
is that average good description of the data?
why won't you answer?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 09:07pm PT
|
Why is that soooooooooooooo hard???
I don't know, you tell me, you can't do it, why is it so hard?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 09:12pm PT
|
here is the average
is this a good description of the data?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 09:20pm PT
|
why do you say it is very good?
and what trend do you want to plot?
linear, logarithmic, polynomial (and the order), power, exponential, moving average,... ?
and why?
[edit]
why a linear trend?
what is the meaning of a linear trend, The Chief?
if you project your trend back in time, will it agree with the earlier temperature anomaly?
(none of those plots use the NOAA data, would you please use that data, I gave you a link to it upthread).
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 09:24pm PT
|
As we all know ,the period you are requesting Chief , using Ed's above data points would differ markedly from the german bloggers illustration ( or NOAA if you accept Larry's word in lieu of citation) presented by Larry yesterday. It would show a steep dive from the preceeding five year period. This would strongly indicate the temp anomaly spike produced subsequent to the 98 super El Nino was just a temporary weather change not in accord with the monotonous rise projected by the totality of the IPCC sanctioned GCM's. What Ed presented in his three plots is as good as it gets from him, unless of course he plots back to the thirties using raw unaltered data. This would show a much stronger cooling trend than the near zero anomaly of the red line plot.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 09:26pm PT
|
I'm not avoiding anything, The Chief,
I am asking you some questions before supplying the plots...
please indicate why you would use a linear plot, what does it mean? linear trend?
what does it tell you about the climate?
I thought we were talking about the NOAA data, would you please use that data.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 09:41pm PT
|
I hate to take sides on the details of this and I always have to add the caveat that perhaps Ed's got yet another "trick" up his sleeve, but . . .
looks like The Chief's got Ed pinned down on this one.
(Ed has, I must say, done an admirable job of attempting to "hide the decline" as they like to say in warmist circles! He's got a near bottomless bag of tricks of semantic obfuscation, multiple data sets, appeals to (unnecessary) complex math, etc. But it's kind of like the famous scene in the Wizard of Oz--sometimes when you're caught, you're caught!)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 09:45pm PT
|
here you go, The Chief, the green line is your 9 year trend from 2005 to 2013...
that linear trend doesn't tell us anything about the climate, it just tells us the average rate of the temperature anomaly change over that time period.
If we took your assertion seriously, that it predicts the future, then we would expect that it would agree with the past, too.
As you can see, it doesn't.
However, what about those green filled black circles? they seem to do a much better job...
that is a plot of the climate models, an average over all the model runs... which does a considerably better job then your linear trend...
here it is for that shorter period of time
these models are quite complex including the CO2 increases, the various physical phenomena related to the climate, including the solar variations, ENSO, and all that... basically everything we understand about the climate.
looks like they do a considerably better job than a linear trend on 9 years worth of data.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 09:54pm PT
|
you model doesn't work, The Chief...
it is in very bad agreement in the past... it isn't at all reasonable. How do you explain that your model says the anomaly should have been +3ºF in 1980 when it was observed to be around 0ºF?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 09:56pm PT
|
the model of a linear trend in the temperature anomaly...
that is your model.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 10:06pm PT
|
I see your plot
and if I understand your argument, you are saying that you can predict what the future temperature anomaly is going to be by assuming that the linear trend correctly calculates it into the future.
Your model is that the rate of change of the temperature anomaly is constant, and set by the temperature anomalies from the year 2005 to 2013.
However, if we take your model seriously, we should also be able to calculate what the past temperature anomaly was, which I have done for you here
when we calculate the temperature anomaly 20 years ago, we see that your linear model badly disagrees with the data...
why would you expect it to predict the next 20 years?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 10:30pm PT
|
Just observing . I can't add anything to what Ed already revealed with his three plot presentation. Like I said: thats as good as it gets.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 10:39pm PT
|
you are predicting the next 20 years, but you have no evidence that the way you are predicting it has anything to do with reality...
in fact, your prediction method is shown to be in disagreement with the data, the temperature anomaly in 1980 was not +3ºF, had it been, you would have predicted our current temperature anomaly correctly. But you didn't, and you couldn't... had your model any predictive capability, the anomaly today, given the observed value in 1980, would be -3ºF, which it is not.
The point is, your implied model, the linear trend in the recent temperature, doesn't have anything at all to do with the behavior of the climate.
The climate models, on the other hand, do a good job reproducing the anomaly since 1896 based on our fundamental understanding of the climate. Those models make a much better case for predicting the future than your linear model of temperature anomaly.
In fact, your model only predicts the temperature anomaly, the climate models predict the entire observed climate... of which the surface temperature anomaly is only one part.
You cannot seriously assert that your model has anything at all to do with reality. It does not.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 10:59pm PT
|
if you believe in magic, The Chief, then anything can happen...
your "if" isn't supported by anything but magic (I'd call it magical thinking, but thinking has nothing to do with it).
your "if" is totally made up, and doesn't have anything to do with the past. How is it that suddenly, it has anything to do with the future?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 11:17pm PT
|
What the hell else do the models accurately predict Ed. Perhaps the mid tropospheric hotspot, an increase in relative humidity, more frequent and severe weather, increased antarctic sea ice now at the point that its extent has raised global coverage to record levels? No the heart of the hype coming from the model projections was a monotonous, unrelenting linear rise Iin global average temps in response to increased CO2 and the imagined amplifying feedbacks. Exactly equal to the projection of a linear decrease of temps you are now ridiculing. Seems to me your between a rock and a hard place with this argument.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 11:18pm PT
|
gee The Chief, it only goes back 120 years... your's doesn't go back 5 years...
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 11:26pm PT
|
blahblah, I see that you more or less agreed with my understanding of your "argument". I don't really understand though why you wrote a long post to make it more clear.
1. You have read that science are not perfect. Especially that same part of some other areas of science have some problems, psychology, clinical statistical studies for example.
2. You don't believe in the conclusions from climate science.
So you conclude that climate science is in your words a "science" that should not be trusted.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!