Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2015 - 01:13pm PT
|
Perhaps you missed this from my last link:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2014 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.27°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.63°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.70°C per century.
Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)
1st. 2014(+0.27°C)
2nd. 1998(+0.22°C)
3rd. 2013,2010(+0.20°C)
5th. 2005(+0.17°C)
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2015 - 01:20pm PT
|
So Chiefy, are you saying 1st is not a record?
BTW, love all your back editing.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2015 - 01:23pm PT
|
1st. 2014(+0.27°C), 2nd. 1998(+0.22°C), 3rd. 2013,2010(+0.20°C), 5th. 2005(+0.17°C)
Nope, no RECORD claim. None.
Classic Chief pedantry. 1st is not a record claim.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2015 - 01:32pm PT
|
So Chiefy,
Where does 2014 rank in JMA temp series?
I'll give you a clue:
1st. 2014(+0.27°C)
2nd. 1998(+0.22°C)
3rd. 2013,2010(+0.20°C)
5th. 2005(+0.17°C)
Ask the wife if you need any further help.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2015 - 02:41pm PT
|
Douglas, I'm curious if the table you posted includes a Durbin-Watson Statistic for serial correlation. The residual series doesn't look particularly random to me casual observation.
John
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2015 - 03:14pm PT
|
So far, these are the surface temp rankings for 2014:
JMA: 1st
NASA: 1st
NOAA: 1st
BEST: 1st (tied with 2005,2010)
Hadley: yet to release data
And of course, the PDF's always overlap, so no year can be 'certain' to be first.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2015 - 09:24pm PT
|
Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.
That means those three years are tied for 1st, dumbass.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2015 - 09:33pm PT
|
Technically since the Earth is coming out of the last iceage
each year should be fractionally warmer than the previous one
in a curve smoothing sort of way.
Nothing to do with CO2. Everything to do with the Sun.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2015 - 09:36pm PT
|
What a semantic twit you are Chiefy.
Maybe this will do it for you:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf
The global surface temperature average (land and sea) for 2014 was nominally the warmest since the global instrumental record began in 1850. However, within the margin of error, it is tied with 2005 and 2010 and so we can't be certain it set a new record.
Now start dancing, Chiefy.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2015 - 09:40pm PT
|
They are tied, idiot.
Just like I stated.
BEST: 1st (tied with 2005,2010)
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2015 - 09:43pm PT
|
Are you for real, Chief?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2015 - 09:53pm PT
|
the paper that describes how the probabilities in this table were calculated is:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 40, 5965–5969, doi:10.1002/2013GL057999, 2013
Uncertainty in annual rankings from NOAA’s global temperature time series
Anthony Arguez, Thomas R. Karl, Michael F. Squires, and Russell S. Vose
which is an interesting read… here from the first and last paragraphs:
[1] Annual rankings of global temperature are an important component of climate monitoring. However, there is some degree of uncertainty for every yearly value in the global temperature time series, which leads to uncertainty in annual rankings as well. This study applies a Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center’s global land-ocean surface temperature (NOAATMP) time series. Accounting for persistence between years does not materially affect the results versus presuming statistical independence…
[18] Given the potential for annual ranking uncertainty estimates to vary from year to year, which can be particularly volatile when annual values persist near record levels as we have seen over the last two decades, articulating an uncertainty range alongside an annual ranking makes the climate scientist’s already formidable communications challenge even more difficult. However, stakeholders are better served by, and often clamor for, a more thorough accounting of climatic conditions. This entails climate monitoring centers to provide not only a historical perspective of the most recent annual or monthly observation but also the context of the uncertainty inherent in that historical perspective.
the prophesy of running into “communications challenge” is apparent from this thread, where a number of people (The Chief prominent among them) loudly proclaim an interpretation which they are ill equipped to explain.
I’ll attempt to reproduce the analysis myself, but it is sufficiently interesting that it will take some time to do. But the paper’s Fig. 2 is informative, and probably worth the attempt to explain.
The paper was written before the 2014 data was available, but that will not change the results at all.
In this plot, the maximum and minimum values of a year’s rank is indicated by the vertical bars. This bar is the 95% Confidence Interval (you can look up “Confidence Interval” in Wikipedia). Basically it indicates a less than 5% likelihood that the ranking would be outside of that band.
You can see that the ranking of the years since about 2001 are all above 17th warmest ranking. At the time of this plot 2012 was the latest year. So those 12 years, were among the warmest 17 years over the 133 years recorded.
The plot shows that the most recent years are among the warmest in over a century with very high probability (95%).
The values in the table are calculated using a monte carlo model of the time series, where the model is developed from the time series. This analysis is interesting and perhaps I’ll discuss it after I do it… or perhaps Chiloe is familiar enough with it to explain it. My conjecture is that having produced many different time series with the random variation component and a “regular” time series component, the number of times a year is the warmest divided by the total number of trials is the probability.
So for 100 synthetic time series, 48 of them had 2014 as the warmest year (from the NOAA column of the table above).
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2015 - 11:26pm PT
|
the "margin of error" is included in the analysis...
we could discuss it but I doubt that it would be very productive as it probably requires more statistical detail then you could tolerate.
One reason I'd like to reproduce the analysis would be to perform it on other time series, like the BEST time series (the paper I quoted above checks agains the HADCrut4 and the GISTEMP time series).
the rankings don't depend on the time series, and the probabilities derived from two different methods agree with each other and with those calculated for the other time series...
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2015 - 11:29pm PT
|
Beating the long-fossilized horse of whether 2014 is the warmest year ever, or only really close, hasn't advanced things much here. How about if the no-warming-since 2000 posters offer up their explanations of why it hasn't cooled again back to 1980s levels or so? Seems to me we keep reading right here that solar irradiance is down; there hasn't been a big El Nino event (which correlate with higher spikes in global surface temperatures) since pre-2000 and only one moderate one in 2002-3 or thereabouts. With these natural temperature forces on the downswing, and if GHGs are an insignificant effect on the temperature, it ought to have gone DOWN again and not held steady with a whole bunch of the warmest years ever in the disputed 2000-2015 period.
Any suggestions?
|
|
roadkillphil
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2015 - 06:26am PT
|
Still thinking all these arguements are probably irrelevant. It's about the people, people. If one considers the planet to be a living, breathing entity, wouldn't that make human beings obligate parasites?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2015 - 06:30am PT
|
If-then I suppose one could say that for anything living on earth based on you logic. But lets go with it.
If humans are parasites.. that's fine. Sucessful parasites don't kill the host. At least not till their offspring can move on to another.
Will we be successful parasites?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2015 - 07:11am PT
|
Eventually you are probably correct. However that is no excuse for not digging a proper latrine.
Which is metaphorically the issue at hand.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2015 - 07:18am PT
|
That is the more interesting question regarding AGW. What can we do about it? What should we do about it?
You seem to think we can do nothing and should do nothing. I'm thinking we can do a fair bit.. and should do at least some of it.
Especially we should do things that improve both our economic and environmental outlook.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!