Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 19861 - 19880 of total 20343 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
raymond phule

climber
Feb 27, 2015 - 01:25pm PT

I calculated the average for the last 12 months. I came up with 0.679

I believe that you should check your calculations.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Feb 27, 2015 - 01:30pm PT
Here is the corrected NASA graph,



and the NOAA graph, which was already correct:




How the NASA glitch happened: as noted in my earlier post I was trying out something new,
I've been graphing these intermittently either as monthly or yearly values, but it occurred to me that an uncentered 12-month moving average would have the advantages of both -- smoother (like annual values) but updated each month and up to date (like monthly).

The code for which looks like this:
tssmooth ma gis12 = gistemp, window(11,1,0)

What I failed to realize was that the NASA data set I was working with (unlike the NOAA dataset) contains empty rows for each month of 2015, so that code kept on calculating uncentered 12-month averages for each of those. The result goes like this:
+------------------------------+
| edate gistemp gis12 |
|------------------------------|
1969. | Jan2014 .68 .6025 |
1970. | Feb2014 .44 .5958334 |
1971. | Mar2014 .7 .605 |
1972. | Apr2014 .71 .625 |
1973. | May2014 .78 .6441666 |
|------------------------------|
1974. | Jun2014 .61 .645 |
1975. | Jul2014 .5 .6433333 |
1976. | Aug2014 .74 .6541667 |
1977. | Sep2014 .81 .6616667 |
1978. | Oct2014 .78 .6766667 |
|------------------------------|
1979. | Nov2014 .64 .6666667 |
1980. | Dec2014 .73 .6766667 |
1981. | Jan2015 .75 .6825 |
1982. | Feb2015 . .7045454 |
1983. | Mar2015 . .705 |
|------------------------------|
1984. | Apr2015 . .7044445 |
1985. | May2015 . .695 |
1986. | Jun2015 . .7071428 |
1987. | Jul2015 . .7416667 |
1988. | Aug2015 . .742 |
|------------------------------|
1989. | Sep2015 . .725 |
1990. | Oct2015 . .7066666 |
1991. | Nov2015 . .74 |
1992. | Dec2015 . .75 |
+------------------------------+

That is, it gives an appropriate value for Jan2015, but thereafter calculates averages based on a shrinking window, progressively more dependent on temperatures from the hot later part of the previous year. Ultimately the "Dec2015" calculation is actually just the average of one month, Jan2015 (.75).

Sorry!
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 27, 2015 - 01:39pm PT
Chiloe, nice work. I wish I had the smarts to check it myself, but I'll leave that to others.



"The last part of your graph... the part showing recent temps above the 2010 high... it's pure fiction."

Question of the day: Does EdwardT have the character to apologize?

Looks like it is my turn to apologize--I jumped to a conclusion and was wrong. I eat my words--for lunch.


They don't taste so bad, though, because I'm washing them down with a Lagunitas IPA.

Cheers,
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Feb 27, 2015 - 01:56pm PT
Why does your graph (again) show a new high, while the one from Wood for Trees does not?

Because your WFT graph is a moving average. The high point near 2010 is not necessarily the one for calendar year 2010.

EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Feb 27, 2015 - 01:56pm PT
"The last part of your graph... the part showing recent temps above the 2010 high... it's pure fiction."

Question of the day: Does EdwardT have the character to apologize?

Looks like it is my turn to apologize--I jumped to a conclusion and was wrong. I eat my words--for lunch.


They don't taste so bad, though, because I'm washing them down with a Lagunitas IPA.

Cheers,

Thank you and Raymond for the catch.

My claim was incorrect. I was wrong.
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Feb 27, 2015 - 02:01pm PT
monolith

climber
SF bay area

Feb 27, 2015 - 01:56pm PT

Because your WFT graph is a moving average. The high point is not necessarily the one for calendar year 2010.

So?

Aren't Chiloe's graphs moving averages of monthly values, too?

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Feb 27, 2015 - 02:06pm PT
Yes you are right. But if you look at the data, the WFT moving average does not include January, 2015.

The last 12 month anomaly is .6825, while WFT shows .676667
raymond phule

climber
Feb 27, 2015 - 02:07pm PT
The 12 months average from woodfortrees doesn't seem to include the average that stops in january 2015 even though january 2015 is included in their data set. Strange and seems to be a small bug.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Feb 27, 2015 - 02:10pm PT
. list edate gis12 if year>2009
1921. | Jan2010 .5958333 |
1922. | Feb2010 .6175 |
1923. | Mar2010 .6491666 |
1924. | Apr2010 .67 |
1925. | May2010 .6791667 |
1926. | Jun2010 .6783333 |
1927. | Jul2010 .67 |
1928. | Aug2010 .6683334 |
1929. | Sep2010 .6616666 |
1930. | Oct2010 .6683334 |
1931. | Nov2010 .6708333 |
1932. | Dec2010 .66 |
1933. | Jan2011 .6433333 |
1934. | Feb2011 .6183333 |
1935. | Mar2011 .5933333 |
1936. | Apr2011 .5758333 |
1937. | May2011 .5566667 |
1938. | Jun2011 .5516667 |
1939. | Jul2011 .5633333 |
1940. | Aug2011 .5716667 |
1941. | Sep2011 .5683333 |
1942. | Oct2011 .5641667 |
1943. | Nov2011 .5441667 |
1944. | Dec2011 .5458333 |
1945. | Jan2012 .54 |
1946. | Feb2012 .5391667 |
1947. | Mar2012 .535 |
1948. | Apr2012 .5358334 |
1949. | May2012 .5558333 |
1950. | Jun2012 .5591667 |
1951. | Jul2012 .5425 |
1952. | Aug2012 .5316666 |
1953. | Sep2012 .5441667 |
1954. | Oct2012 .5541667 |
1955. | Nov2012 .57 |
1956. | Dec2012 .5691667 |
1957. | Jan2013 .5883333 |
1958. | Feb2013 .5958334 |
1959. | Mar2013 .6016667 |
1960. | Apr2013 .59 |
1961. | May2013 .5766667 |
1962. | Jun2013 .5783333 |
1963. | Jul2013 .58 |
1964. | Aug2013 .5841666 |
1965. | Sep2013 .5883334 |
1966. | Oct2013 .5783333 |
1967. | Nov2013 .5841666 |
1968. | Dec2013 .5966667 |
1969. | Jan2014 .6025 |
1970. | Feb2014 .5958334 |
1971. | Mar2014 .605 |
1972. | Apr2014 .625 |
1973. | May2014 .6441666 |
1974. | Jun2014 .645 |
1975. | Jul2014 .6433333 |
1976. | Aug2014 .6541667 |
1977. | Sep2014 .6616667 |
1978. | Oct2014 .6766667 |
1979. | Nov2014 .6666667 |
1980. | Dec2014 .6766667 |
1981. | Jan2015 .6825 |
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Feb 27, 2015 - 02:11pm PT

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/02/26/new-research-suggests-global-warming-is-about-to-heat-up/
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Feb 27, 2015 - 02:16pm PT
The 12 month average ending with January 2015 took a big jump over the previous 12 month average because January, 2015 was considerably higher than January, 2014.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Feb 27, 2015 - 02:21pm PT
The 12 month average took a big jump over the previous 12 month average because January 2015 was considerably higher than January, 2014.

I've seen one regression analysis where somebody tried to forecast what NASA's February 2015 number will be (high, they think). I suppose there will be betting about the ice minimum this year as well.
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Feb 27, 2015 - 03:46pm PT
Betting on something where the numbers can be changed by those who
have financial and professional points to win? Wow! That is so lame.

Feb 2015
Coyote races a struggling Coast Guard icebreaker across frozen Boston harbor.
And wins!
https://twitter.com/JasonGraziadei/status/571101516431372289






Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Feb 27, 2015 - 05:22pm PT
Betting on something where the numbers can be changed by those who
have financial and professional points to win? Wow! That is so lame.


listening to some anonymous troll opine? Wow! that's so lame.
not knowing the troll, we have no idea what axe is being ground...

Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Feb 27, 2015 - 05:25pm PT
Nothing going on at all..except the big meltdown.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/27/the-big-melt-antarctica_n_6766290.html

You can't make this sh#t up...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/jim-inhofe-climate-snow_n_6763868.html


Dumb as dirt.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Feb 27, 2015 - 06:04pm PT
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/nyregion/with-white-knuckle-grip-februarys-cold-clings-to-new-york.html?_r=0


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/02/snow-for-all-50-states-forecast-in-next-7-days/

http://www.thepiratescove.us/2015/02/27/if-all-you-see-1414/
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Feb 27, 2015 - 06:31pm PT
^^^And yet the global temp average keeps on rising.^^^

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Feb 28, 2015 - 10:01am PT
Science is a perpetual work in progress, so what are mysteries at one time are often explained later on, often the explanations come as a result of trying to understand something else. And while we often wished to be able to go in a straight line from our current understanding to an explanation of some curious fact, it more often the case that the path is like that of traversing a “twisty little maze” with dead ends, wrong turns, back tracing, and all that.

But then, if we are ultimately on the right path, we might realize that we’ve explained something that we had once been interested in, while we were doing something else.

Critics of the century long explanation of the Earth’s surface temperature being due to the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere often point to the rapid increase of the surface temperature in the early part of the 20th century as evidence that the CO2 concentrations aren’t the only thing going on (the more extreme critics cite that as evidence against the idea that CO2 concentrations have anything to do with the surface temperature, but that position is physically untenable). Climate scientists would agree that natural variability has a role, but this leads to the question: how big a role? and also, ultimately, to what drives the “natural variability.” Just how natural is it?

Climate modeling has become more and more sophisticated, and both the precision and the accuracy of models allow scientists to compare the model outputs with the observations. The models contain our very best scientific ideas of the physical drivers of climate, and these models predict what we should be observing for a large number of variables, surface temperature being only one. As the models “get better” at predicting, they also will disagree with the observations. This disagreement cannot only happen when both the observational precision and accuracy and the model precision and accuracy are of the same order. That the current state of both the observations and the models are, currently, of the same order is a remarkable testimony to climate science.

A recent paper in Science makes a case for the role that the Pacific and Atlantic ocean oscillations play in the surface temperature.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6225/988.full
Science 347, 988 (2015)
DOI: 10.1126/science.1257856

Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures

Byron A. Steinman, Michael E. Mann, Sonya K. Miller

The recent slowdown in global warming has brought into question the reliability of climate model projections of future temperature change and has led to a vigorous debate over whether this slowdown is the result of naturally occurring, internal variability or forcing external to Earth’s climate system. To address these issues, we applied a semi-empirical approach that combines climate observations and model simulations to estimate Atlantic- and Pacific-based internal multidecadal variability (termed “AMO” and “PMO,” respectively). Using this method, the AMO and PMO are found to explain a large proportion of internal variability in Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures. Competition between a modest positive peak in the AMO and a substantially negative-trending PMO are seen to produce a slowdown or “false pause” in warming of the past decade.



In a "Perspectives" piece appearing in the same issue introducing this paper, Ben Booth makes a number of good points regarding the work. The summary figure in that piece is a good one:

Credit: Booth, Science 347, 988 (2015)

The two graphs superimposed on the oceans show the temperature anomaly due to the ocean oscillations as a function of time. The warming trends at the early part of the 20th century as well as the cooling 1950s-1960s and the recent "hiatus" have an explanation in these derived ocean variabilities.

The evidence is the result of both improvements in the surface temperature time series and the modeling. How these values are extracted in the analysis is something we could discuss at length.

The physical cause of these ocean oscillations is certainly something that will be a focus of research.

Figure 3 from the paper:

Credit: Steinman et al, Science 347, 988 (2015)

Fig. 3 Semi-empirical estimate of AMO, PMO, and NMO [the multidecadal component of internal Northern Hemisphere mean temperature variability] based on target region regression using historical climate model realizations.

(A) CMIP5-GISS. (B) CMIP5-AIE. (C) CMIP-All. In (A) to (C), blue, AMO; green, PMO; and black, NMO. Bivariate regression-based approximation of NMO (red) strongly correlates (R2 = 0.86/0.88/0.91 for CMIP5-All/CMIP5-GISS, CMIP5-AIE, respectively) with semi-empirical NMO estimate (black). 95% confidence limits of the AMO, PMO, and NMO CMIP5-All means were determined by using the ensemble of target region mean series resulting from bootstrap resampling (Fig. 1) and are shown as colored shading.


is discussed in the paragraph:

Our analysis shows the NMO to be decreasing at the end of the series (Fig. 3 and figs. S5 and S6). Mann et al. (42) assessed the recent decrease in the NMO in terms of a negative-trending AMO contribution. However, we reach a somewhat different conclusion in the present study, finding that the recent decrease in the NMO is instead a result of a sharply decreasing PMO (with a relatively flat AMO contribution). That observation is consistent with recent findings that the anomalous slowing of warming over the past decade is tied to subsurface heat burial in the tropical Pacific and a tendency for persistent “La Niña”–like conditions (43–46). Our analysis attributes this trend to internal variability as a consequence of the failure of the CMIP5 models to identify a recent forced trend of this nature. However, there is paleoclimate evidence suggesting that a La Niña–like response might arise from positive radiative forcing (47), and the possibility remains that state-of-the-art climate models fail to capture such a dynamical response to anthropogenic radiative forcing.



which highlights the idea that as we get better at predicting, we also learn more about those things that are not currently a part of our predictions. This is the incremental improvement of our understanding where we become more sensitive to the subtle aspects of the physical system, a result of our improved ability to predict.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Feb 28, 2015 - 10:12am PT
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-31636255
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Feb 28, 2015 - 10:24am PT
Some of the authors of your presented paper , Ed, are discredited and have no more credibility than Patchauri-the IPCC Chief- currently on bail for criminal charges in his native India. See TGT's link. Why should we put any trust in any of the interpretations of the multi hundreds of billions of dollars climate change industry when it is patently obvious that their conclusions were foregone from the get go? A naked attempt for subjugation of the populace through taxation and overly burdensome regulations.
Messages 19861 - 19880 of total 20343 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews