Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 01:31pm PT
|
Pretty basic stuff?
if you average all the data points you get identically 0.000, which is what you expect. The standard deviation of the points around that is 0.167ºC, and this represents the spread of the data around the trend. In fact, you can plot a "histogram" (also called a "frequency" plot) of the data:
Umm, yeah, we're up to maybe week 3 in stats 101, pretty early even in a high school stats course I think. But not just the formulas, you'd need to know what they mean. Which Ed keeps asking but no denialist here apparently has the numerical literacy to answer.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 01:42pm PT
|
Twist it all around with crafty verbiage.
Crafty Ed said "bloviating."
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 12, 2014 - 03:38pm PT
|
Do you concur with the NOAA's statement regarding the ZERO Surface Mean Temp Rise since 2000?
Sure, why not. There are other factors to climate change besides the surface temp.
Say The Chief, over the past 10 years, how many have been the hottest on record?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 04:11pm PT
|
what's the most recent Vostok core sample date?
what's the current CO2 concentration of the atmosphere?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 04:34pm PT
|
Vostok core samples are indicative of local weather and local south polar CO2 concentrations Eddy. Cold oceans are a Co2 sink, warm oceans, read equatorial , are a net CO2 source. Considering the persistent cyclonic wind patterns encircling the polar continent , how complete can the mixing of global air be there? So , how accurate of global reconstructions can be made by these antarctic cores considering this and other problems with the cores? For all the scientists know CO2 global averages could have been higher for short periods, say decades to centuries, during periods of the Holocene than they are now. CO2 is not the primary control knob for global average temps, you all will have to admit that within five years. It was going to be a record north american grain harvest this year. Does anyone know the extent of crop damage from this latest wide spread incursion of ice age like air.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 05:05pm PT
|
I already disputed it Chief.
Problems with reading comprehension as well as graph reading. Nice combo.
Why don't you make one of your classic crayon drawings and point out the spot you claim proves there was a 1C spike in 130 years.
Dang, Chief, are you done editing?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 05:35pm PT
|
Chief's GISP2 graph has been phonied up for the gullible in many different ways. Obviously the tricks worked, as he's posted it over and over.
1. The legend implies it's from the paper by Richard Alley, but actually this is a propaganda graph not drawn by any scientist.
2. The x axis is labeled "Years before present (2000 AD)", but in the real dataset by Alley "present" is defined as 1950 AD. That moves the final year of data (95 years before "present") back to 1855, more or less in the Little Ice Age. No wonder it looks so cold!
3. The last few years of data, roughly 1750 to 1855, are drawn in red to emphasize their fake "nowness." Maybe even to imitate the real paleoclimate graphs that add modern instrumental data to bring the record up to the real present, and use a different color to emphasize a different data source.
4. The overall pattern is summarized by a quadratic regression to get that dramatic inverted-U look. I've never seen scientists summarize an ice core record that way: they know it would be false. Moving averages or lowess regression are commonly used in real graphs.
5. If somebody did add modern temperatures from Summit Greenland to this record, they'd be around -29C. Pencil that in (higher than the Medieval or Roman warm periods) and see how it ruins the story.
6. But of course these are Summit Greenland temperatures which are not the same thing as global or hemisphere temperatures. Did it average -29 degrees C where you live this past year? Global or hemispheric reconstructions have to use proxies from a lot more locations and datasets, with careful analysis to blend those together.
7. There is somehow this belief among those who can't think that if climate changed for natural reasons in the past, that proves humans aren't changing it now. Like arguing that if forest fires started naturally in the past, campfires and arsonists can't start any of them now.
Such problems involving phonied-up GISP2 graphs and other ice cores have been pointed out on this thread many times before.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 12, 2014 - 06:51pm PT
|
A couple of days ago, I posted the following:
{Image of a graph}
It was ignored. Understandably.
"Understandably" because your detailed examination of the graph was simply the sound Hmm.?
Lucky me... I just came across a more detailed examination of this divergence.
You mean a more detailed examination than "Hmm."
Astounding.
(Yawn.)
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 12, 2014 - 07:17pm PT
|
How do you define the "Pause." In surface temps, yes it's there.
Now, do you or do you not accept that the oceans have absorbed a large amount of heat? Yes or No will do fine.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 07:49pm PT
|
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-pacific-ocean-absorbing-faster-years.html
"A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. **In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.
**
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 07:55pm PT
|
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 12, 2014 - 08:11pm PT
|
Do you mean as they have so many times as a natural process for the past 500,000 to a million years when there have been such "warming" occurrences, KaveMAN?
No, that is not what I mean.
And you know that.
In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.
Do you believe this, YES or NO.
Show us you are capable of answering a question, like I have.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 08:15pm PT
|
No Chief, you can't read your own graph -- either of them.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 08:59pm PT
|
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page4.php
"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when people first started burning fossil fuels, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million to 387 parts per million, a 39 percent increase. This means that for every million molecules in the atmosphere, 387 of them are now carbon dioxide—the highest concentration in two million years. Methane concentrations have risen from 715 parts per billion in 1750 to 1,774 parts per billion in 2005, the highest concentration in at least 650,000 years."
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 09:23pm PT
|
Sure Chief, looks completely natural.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!