Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 09:16pm PT
|
Okay, we are getting closer to the truth. Let's rephrase this recent announcement: There is a less than fifty percent probability that 2014 was the warmest year of the instrumental record stretching back to 1880. That this temp rise is consistent with Earth systems natural rise out of the Little Ice Age should not diminish the fact that these temp records were achieved through homogenation, infills, continuing downward adjustments of prior raw temp data and raising of current temp data, and other downright frauds.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2015 - 11:32pm PT
|
Is the recent pause statistically significant? Because of the ENSO and AMO variations, similar variations have occurred in the past. Are these the latest incarnations of ENSO/AMO? Without a fuller understanding of ENSO/AMO, we can’t be sure. Based on the record from 1970 to 2001, how likely is a pause similar to the one we see, based simply on the unrelated behavior o ENSO and AMO? Statistical significance is usually described as the likelihood that such a variation might occur given the past behavior of the data. In this case, since similar fluctuations are evident in the data, the current “pause” is not statistically significant.
Richard Mueller, BEST
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/has-global-warming-stopped.pdf
you might recognize some of the plots, The Chief.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2015 - 05:58am PT
|
All the kerfuffle over 2014 being the hottest year on record comes down our trusted government scientists being guilty of lying by omission.
The official government release stated "NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record". It contained points about "hottest years ever", 1.4 degrees of warming, largely driven by man, with most warming occurring in last three decades. They pitched warming without mentioning any relevant details that might cool their news.
It wasn't until the skeptic bloggers made a stink that they came forward with those pesky details.
Initially omitting those details hurt credibility.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2015 - 07:49am PT
|
I'm sure your dog also spends a lot of time licking it's butt.
If only chief could reach that far...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2015 - 08:22am PT
|
"pesky details"?
If you take the point of view that any of the years back to 1880 could have been the warmest, then the probability of any of them being so is 0.75%
Instead, we have the claim from NOAA that 2014 had a 48% and NASA 38% probability of being the warmest year. That's a factor of 5000 to 6400 times larger than any single year being randomly the warmest.
what's the "pesky detail"?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2015 - 08:27am PT
|
According to the rest of the data sources, 2014 is NO where near the warmest on record. What's wrong with this picture?
One thing wrong with that picture is that the discussion is about the mean temperature for a year and your picture show the monthly average.
Another bad thing in your graph is that some of the temperature records in your graph is not updated very recently. Hadcrut3 seems to be updated sometime before last summer, thus it is not that easy to determine the yearly average when half a year is missing...
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2015 - 08:29am PT
|
In a critical year for action to prevent runaway climate change, one would hope the issue would rank high on chief executives’ list of business risks to worry about.
So it comes as a shock to discover that climate change appears so low on their list of concerns that professional services group PricewaterhouseCoopers did not even bother to include it in its global survey of business leaders.
PwC’s 18th annual global CEO survey, released Tuesday to coincide with the opening of the World Economic Forum in Davos, failed to even ask 1,322 business leaders about their global warming concerns after only 10% registered concern the previous year.
A spokeswoman for PwC said that climate change did not make it into the top 19 risks CEOs were questioned about because of their lack of interest in the subject.
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jan/20/global-warming-business-risks-government-regulation-taxes
Global warming is a non-issue to these CEOs. Does this mean they are indifferent about efforts to deal with rising CO2 levels?
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2015 - 08:49am PT
|
If you take the point of view that any of the years back to 1880 could have been the warmest, then the probability of any of them being so is 0.75%
Instead, we have the claim from NOAA that 2014 had a 48% and NASA 38% probability of being the warmest year. That's a factor of 5000 to 6400 times larger than any single year being randomly the warmest.
I'm not sure where you were going with all of the above. My point was 2014 was marginally warmer than 2005 and 2010. From what I've read, the difference between the years is less than the margin of error.
From The Berkeley Earth newsletter:
Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by'0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty (0.05C).
Therefore, it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010 or 2005 was actually the warmest year.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2015 - 09:41am PT
|
Frosty, the only thing your winning is the most insulting loon award. One wonders how long it will be before you go the way of other Dodo's like Hedge and the good Dr. F.
A few items for correction. Some here are stating that this was a non or neglible El Nino year, which isn't strictly true. What this year has proven is that the scientific understanding of ocean and wind circulations is woefully inadequate in the face of interacting and seemingly chaotic processes that have kept the long term global mean temp remarkably stable , within +/- 3c, for at least the last couple geo epochs. Assuming a catastrophic (for the agw industry) defunding of climate science is not in the cards ( as a result of increased exposure of the fraud dominating the industry) this years atypical manifestation of El Nino will be a hot topic of study. That the surface temp anonaly remains on the modest .8c plateau of natural warming coming out of the LIA, in spite of the max of solar cycle 24 and a great circulation of vast quanities of the western pacific warm pool, could be another hot topic.
Given all the current forcings, solar max, basin wide distribution of the west pacific warm pool and consequent warming of the lower troposphere, and the supposed effects of supposed epoch long high levels of CO2, one wonders if we have reached the edge of the plateau and a steep descent looms.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2015 - 10:01am PT
|
No Frosty, complaint will not come from me. That your cookie cutter attacks are lifted from the pages of climate hysteria blogs is mildly entertaining in its ineptitude. Besides that, you come up with occaisional gut wrenching nuggets like " Chuffian Darwinism". No amigo, if you suffer erasure it will be from your own efforts.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2015 - 10:21am PT
|
Very good Frosty, you shet out another gold nugget.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2015 - 11:03am PT
|
No, not at all. But you are oblivious to the insignificance of your prescense here in this peculiar backwater.
It's like what the Duck was seemingly trying to tell you. If you mistake entertainment for meaningful purpose, you need a break.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2015 - 06:51pm PT
|
It wasn't until the skeptic bloggers made a stink that they came forward with those pesky details.
Initially omitting those details hurt credibility.
You seem pretty gullible, EdwartT. Don't believe everything you read in the blogs.
The probabilities were listed prominently in the media release.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2015 - 07:18pm PT
|
And then where were these 'pesky' details finally released?
Even though they were prominently displayed in the press release.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2015 - 07:23pm PT
|
And then where were these 'pesky' details finally released?
Even though they were prominently displayed in the press release.
They were prominently displayed in the linked brief, but not mentioned in the press release. A reader had to click on one of seven "related links" to get those pesky details.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2015 - 07:49am PT
|
So, EdwardT, do you think that NOAA was also trying to hide those 'pesky' details?
Why would NASA hide them and not NOAA?
Chief, try to focus. I'm not Malemute.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!