Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2014 - 11:43pm PT
|
(or NOAA if you accept Larry's word in lieu of citation)
What an idiot.
"http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/images/nClimDiv_USCRN-AnnualDeps.png"
Copy that link from noaa and look at the figure. Does it look familiar?
It could be a good thing to learn how to find out the URL for pictures posted on the internet before starting with the insults and stuff that show your ignorance.
You can ask the chief how he did it. Even he knows that the graph were from noaa.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 15, 2014 - 07:26am PT
|
Wow The Chief, you sure are proud of your graph, you posted it 5 times over the last couple of pages. Too bad you don't really understand what it represents:
Why did you pick less than 10 years of data? If you wanted to show a cooling trend, couldn't you just pick a month in the winter when the temperatures really plunge?
Fact is if this OBSERVED temp trend continues and is not interrupted for the next 10-15 years, it will clearly indicate Global Cooling. Per your own statement that 30 years of consistent weather/temps equals climate. Then we know how history will look back on your kind and all your AGW bs fear mongering eco-freak ideology.
And if the weather behaves like the models that are running on powerful servers predict, the ones run by scientists who actually know what they are doing, history will look back on your kind and wonder how we let you into the conversation for even a minute.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 - 09:09am PT
|
First off Bruce, some of us have to get up in the morning to accomplish actual work. Second, your jabbering about taking Ed apart over straight line chicken scratching is not something I want or have the abilty to do. Instead I depend on his old school scientific ethic to occaisionally rise above his obvious bias to produce little gold nuggets of reality contrary to the alarmist narrative. He did so again last night with his three time series plot. The red line plot, the only one long enough (1975-2013) to represent climate versus weather variability according to the common thirty definition of average trends, clearly showed we are in a period of no significant change other than a very slight long term cooling. The only bone I had to pick was his criticism if The Chief over projecting a trend based on a ten year cooling period while defending the CAGW narrative for similar projections and the attempt to erase significance of "the pause".
Phule, your a damn fool. Look at Chiloes posted graphs fron a few days ago and see if it at all clear who he originally ascribed authorship to before you run off at the mouth.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 - 09:36am PT
|
How well does that red line from 1975 to 2013 describe the temperature anomaly time series, rick?
Can you state how you come to your conclusion?
You look "by eye" but what does your eye see... try to describe it.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 - 10:04am PT
|
Phule, your a damn fool. Look at Chiloes posted graphs fron a few days ago and see if it at all clear who he originally ascribed authorship to before you run off at the mouth.
Yes, it was clear. It was just to look at the URL. He also told you twice that it was a noaa graph and that you should look at the URL. What else should he have done? Is it really necessary to show the URL in quotes or similar so that you can see the link instead of showing the jpg file?
Even the chief used the same graph with the noaa url. You can ask him how he found the source of the file.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 - 10:52am PT
|
Before getting back to concentrating on my days task ahead ( job) of installing slate below the water table of the front of my now roofed and totally roughed in ready for insulation 2000 s.f. deluxe cabin in the sky overlooking the canary of the local coal mine, the receding or advancing matanuska glacier, I'll take a moment to again elaborate on what Ed's red line means. The line is the average july-august temp anomaly, ever so slightly negative, of the 38 year period from 1975-2013. This period definitely qualifies as a trend of climate being it exceeds the 30 years of an average of weather accepted as the definition of climate as previously represented by Ed and many others on this thread. If it is correct it can be checked by combining and averaging his green and purple plot of weather temp anomalies over a 13 and 25 year period. His red line result is reproducible with enough information provided. In short science showing the fact that there is no global warming here over the majority of the supposed rapid increase in manmade airborne CO2. Got it, good, now perhaps you can concentrate on what the taxpayers are paying you to do.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 - 11:07am PT
|
The line is the average temp anomaly, ever so slightly negative, of the 38 year period from 1975-2013.
which is a misunderstanding of the anomaly definition...
the "anomaly" is a difference of the observed temperature with some average temperature over a period of time. The absolute value of the anomaly doesn't contain any special information.
Say I choose to calculate the anomaly with respect to the average temperature over that same period of time, 1975-2014, by definition, the average of the anomaly will be zero.
That the plot I showed has a slightly negative anomaly is indicative of the difference between this time period and the time period over which the anomaly was defined. You can dig that out of the NOAA data webpage, but there isn't any information there.
What is interesting is the change of the anomaly with time. The obvious feature of this plot is that the early years are lower than the red line, and the later years are higher than the red line...
say you bisect the time and take 1975-1994 and 1995-2014
the number of points above the red line for these two periods are:
5 for the period from 1975-1994
14 for the period from 1995-2014
if this was random, you'd have expected half of the points to be above, and half below... that would be 10 above for each period.
Now we have a very slight shift, for the 1975-1994 we saw 4 above and expected 10 and for 1995-2014 we saw 14 above and expected 10.
This is an indication that the temperature anomaly is increasing over that period of time.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 - 11:12am PT
|
I'll take a moment to again elaborate on what Ed's red line means. The line is the average july-august temp anomaly, ever so slightly negative, of the 38 year period from 1975-2013. This period definitely qualifies as a trend of climate being it exceeds the 30 years of an average of weather accepted as the definition of climate as previously represented by Ed and many others on this thread. If it is correct it can be checked by combining and averaging his green and purple plot of weather temp anomalies over a 13 and 25 year period. His red line result is reproducible with enough information provided. In short science showing the fact that there is no global warming here over the majority of the supposed rapid increase in manmade airborne CO2. Got it, good, now perhaps you can concentrate on what the taxpayers are paying you to do.
This is not even funny. How can someone be so clueless about something and at the same time believe that he knows it?
How is it possibly to draw that conclusion from Ed's graph?
It is of course not hard to understand that rick believes everything that his blogs feeds him when he manage to see what he wants in Ed's graph. It doesn't even need to be any connection at all with the line that he thinks is the trend and the actual data.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 - 11:23am PT
|
Do you believe those Final-Fantasy-global-warming-papers or your own eyes?
Unless you travel all over the world all the time is it kind of useless to believe your own eyes on a global matter.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:00pm PT
|
Regardless of your back pedaling over definition, You can draw no conclusion of climate trends by short term weather variation- your own words from earlier posts on this thread. Your short term uptick emphasis is ridiculous. Your red line representing true climate trends over the 38 year period stands regardless of NOAA"s baseline or non baseline. Nice try, but no cigar senor.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:08pm PT
|
Regardless of your back pedaling over definition, You can draw no conclusion of climate trends by short term weather variation- your own words from earlier posts on this thread. Your short term uptick emphasis is ridiculous. Your red line representing true climate trends over the 38 year period stands regardless of NOAA"s baseline or non baseline. Nice try, but no cigar senor.
It is just sad.
The red line is not a trend which should be obvious if you look at the data.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:50pm PT
|
the definition of anomaly is not back peddling, you don't know what it is and are very confused... so you make statements based on your confusion which are idiotic.
But lets extend our averaging analysis to the times back to 1896 using the same data set..
here the blue line is the average of all temperatures... once again, if you look at the number of points above the blue line from 1896 to 1955 you find 21 when you expect 30 (if they were random and independent of time) while as from 1956-2014 you find 36. So we our observation looking at the more recent time from 1975-2014 seems to be the same.
I've drawn on the averages from 1896-1905 in green, from 1895-1935 in red and 1905-1935 in purple, which are the same time periods but on the early side of the graph...
notice that these are all below the average over all the data, and in reverse order as those at the late side of the graph...
it seems that the anomaly is increasing with time, now over roughly 120 years, 4 times the period of the 1975-2014 time period
this is a very simple analysis, anyone who can average can repeat it... all you have to do is down load the data and do the calculations.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:56pm PT
|
Malemute - Awesome posts!
It's now 4.5 yrs later since that 2010 graph, now we are facing the 2015 curve.
|
|
Roger Brown
climber
Oceano, California
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 - 01:18pm PT
|
Just being a lurker and not having too much formal education beyond high school, I just have to rely on what common sense I have. Polar ice caps melt and the oceans rise a little. More water available for evaporation means more cloud cover to hold the earth's heat in, which means more melting which means more evaporation. Kinda a snowballing thing. Is that what is going on or am I dumber than I thought?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 - 01:20pm PT
|
ok, The Chief can't understand how to extrapolate his linear trend model back into the past...
but we can check his model by looking for a similar trend in the NOAA data, turns out that the time period from 1961-1970 has the same trend... -0.069ºF/year
notice that the dashed black lines, which are the linear trend lines for those two subsets, are parallel, which means they are trending down with the same rate.
now The Chief assumes that he can project that into the future 10 or 20 years and that the temperature anomaly so calculated will be what the climate becomes...
using that logic, we can extrapolate the 1961-1970 trend to 2014 and see how well it works:
somehow, The Chief's assumption is not what the data shows, it is about -3.7ºF lower than the observed value in 2014.
That's a huge FAIL of his model.
Apparently, his assumption that you can take the 9 year trend and project it into the future didn't work for the period from 1961-1970.
Why would he think it would work doing it with the 2005-2014 data?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 15, 2014 - 01:22pm PT
|
I don't understand?
You have pretty much shown ignorance here, so no, you don't understand your own graph that plots ... wait for it...
the weather.
(Well actually just a small part of the weather, it just plots temperature.)
Then you state the ....
"Weather"
Indeed. Weather. As in day-to-day weather. Over time, you can call it "climate."
I thought you understood this stuff. What happened?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 - 02:11pm PT
|
Just being a lurker and not having too much formal education beyond high school, I just have to rely on what common sense I have. Polar ice caps melt and the oceans rise a little. More water available for evaporation means more cloud cover to hold the earth's heat in, which means more melting which means more evaporation. Kinda a snoballing thing. Is that what is going on or am I dumber than I thought?
No one knows how dumb you are or how dumb you think you are, so we can't help you there. But the "snowballing" thing (or "feedback," to use the more common term) is one of the cruxes of the matter.
All scientists (no quotation marks) agree that increasing CO2 will cause increased temperature due to the "greenhouse effect" (which, interestingly, is not the way actual greenhouses work, but that's a digression). This increase is limited and not necessarily anything to get alarmed about.
The question that remains to be answered is whether there will be positive feedback, or negative feedback, or no significant feedback one way or the other.
Your example of clouds is, as I understand it, a very complicated one, as cloud cover may contribute to either warming or cooling depending on the circumstances.
An obvious example of a negative feedback is that increased CO2 will cause more plant growth, which will in turn absorb more CO2 than would have otherwise been absorbed. (But NASA modelers, while acknowledging that this particular negative feedback mechanism is significant, do not currently believe it will prevent significant climate change.)
There are some good hand-waving arguments to consider that negative feedback (or no especially strong feedback one way or the other) is a far more likely scenario. Consider, for example, that CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the past than they are now, but that didn't cause the Earth to become like Venus.
But the most honest answer is that we just don't really know what will happen; there is probably some risk that current emissions of CO2, if continued, may have a significant effect on the climate, and at least some of these changes will be negative (although not all of course, for example, lands at very high/low latitudes may become arable).
I do not hold myself out as having any particular technical expertise whatsoever, and I'm just trying to help an apparent noob "get his feet wet" in understanding the issues, if not their resolution. If anything I've written is inaccurate, I'll thankfully stand corrected.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 15, 2014 - 02:15pm PT
|
No one knows how dumb you are or how dumb you think you are, so we can't help you there.
Hey blahblah, you're speaking to Roger, as in Roger Brown. What's wrong with you, man?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2014 - 02:17pm PT
|
I don't know who Roger Brown is, or why I should or shouldn't speak to him!
Edit: the first sentence in my previous post was intended as a little humor, I apologize both if it hurt anyone's feelings, and if it wasn't funny! Please remember that I did take some time to compose a serious answer to the question.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!