Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 26101 - 26120 of total 26443 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Jan 22, 2015 - 09:28pm PT
No it does NOT MONO. But thanks for the laugh again and for showing how your science works. Assuming implies results.

Oh, NO 2014 sets a RECORD from BEST. Thus NO WARMING if it is as you state, "tied".

BEST also states no significant temp changes in ten years and JMA states no warming in 14 years.

The Pause is still alive well, "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.
The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Jan 22, 2015 - 09:33pm PT
Not if it is tied with two other previous years that have the same "record" temp, MONO.


Oh yeah...

That is, of course, an indication that the Earth's average temperature for the last decade has changed little.
BEST 12 Jan 2015

The "Pause" lives according to BEST since 2014 is no higher than the previous two years that were the warmest.
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.
The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Jan 22, 2015 - 09:40pm PT
No dance needed.

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.

Thus no new higher temp record is set, 2014 is NOT the warmest on record and reiterates that the pause exists due to the following statement...

That is, of course, an indication that the Earth's average temperature for the last decade has changed little.

Thanks for clarifying that MONO.
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)
The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Jan 22, 2015 - 09:42pm PT
Tied for what MONO? The same temp.

NO RECORD, NO WARMING in Ten Years. Nothing new. Temps are stable for ten years.

Thanks for the laugh MONO!!!
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
Credit: NASA/NOAA Annual Global Analysis for 2014, slide 5

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.

Credit: Arguez, et al. "ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RANKINGS"

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).



The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Jan 22, 2015 - 10:29pm PT
That is all nice ED H, but where does the "Margin of Error" come into play in your post above and how does it affect the end REAL end results in accordance with the Observed Data for both NASA and NOAA in their final 2014 analysis.

It is all so obvious that this entire CC/CAGW issue is turning into a word game. This "Record" breaking game has absolutely NOTHING to do with the actual observed temps. Rather a bunch of twisted processes that come up with numbers/statistics probabilities that make it all look like something it really isn't if the "Margin of Error" is included into the final news release in proclaiming 2014 as breaking the the prior years results. Which in the NOAA/NASA final numbers, were not by their own admission.

At least BEST included that margin of error factor into their final analysis for 2014 that resulted in this statement...

“Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01 C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty (0.05 C). Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.



Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC

Jan 22, 2015 - 10:19pm PT
Has anyone ever actually encountered the Chuff in person? This question of if he is for real might have something to it. I find it absolutely flabergasting that such a retarded mind can exist as well but really maybe he dosn't. Last time I was in Bishop I asked around and no body had heard of anyone called "the Cheif" or Rick Pudknocker or whatever his name is.

Try the Bishop area phone book Bruce? I'm in there. Dah. Nice spelling btw Bruce. Oh, I am also in the newest edition of the Bishop Area Rock Climbing Guide. Acknowledgement section and several FA's (many of which were completed with one of ST's senior Admins btw) in different chapters.

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).

Credit: Arguez, et al. "Annual Global Temperature Rankings"

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?
The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Jan 23, 2015 - 06:50am PT
Will we be successful parasites?

No. Mother Earth has more important issues to attend to. And we humans are not one of them.

Acknowledging that reality is a step towards understanding our place here. However long that may be.

We are a species just like all the others that have come and gone. Evolution will prevail. We humans are NOT above that law. We never will be. Even though some here and out there will tell we can be.

we could discuss it but I doubt that it would be very productive as it probably requires more statistical detail then you could tolerate.

And that ED H is a perfect example of why the agenda of CAGW will fail and whither away. Self righteous and supposed more knowing attitudes that prevail in the CC Science community exactly as the one above, will indeed be the downfall of it.

It always has been. But you all are too deep into your ego to see that.
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.
The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Jan 23, 2015 - 07:15am PT
Not meant to be an excuse SKI. This deal is far bigger than all of us humans and CC and all the other stuff we humans do. Coming to terms and acknowledging that fact is the key to moving on with our lives/existence as it is far too short to fight meaningless self imposed battles such as this one.

We humans are NOT in control regardless what we do. Mother Earth is. And always will be. Fact.
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.
Mark Force

Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
Jan 23, 2015 - 07:42am PT
How 'Warmest Ever' Headlines and Debates Can Obscure What Is Imporant About Climate Change

http://nyti.ms/1ut3luf
The Chief

climber
RFLMAO here on the Taco
Jan 23, 2015 - 07:44am PT
Ski, I NEVER said we should do nothing. I have stated numerous times on this thread that if we maintained the course that was set back in the 70's regarding cleaning up our act in our mannerisms regarding pollution etc, we would today be light years ahead in "alternative" energy's and behavior changes than we currently are.

Instead of maintaining that course, the science research community decided to add the AGW issue into the mix. In doing so, it stalled the global efforts to adjust our sails and moving forward in implementing the actions required to remedy our behaviors by insisting that science needs to concentrate on finding the reason why the climate is changing etc. Nothing really changed and we humans continued on our merry way of exploiting Mother Earth. Patrick Moore can tell you more about all that. He is a valid expert in it all.

40 years of CC/AGW research to find out what where and why all the while air pollution in China, India and other many locations on earth has gotten tenfold worse than it was back when all the CC research bandwagon all began.

Bullshet promises and skewed policies grow each day while those making those promise continue to behave in the manner that negatively impacts Mother Earth.


In the meantime, 2014 is .04C temps hotter than 2010 only because all the formulas and scientific processes tell us so and science insists they know how to control the Earths heartbeat known as climate.

Do they really? Don't think so.

BTW: The Hypocrisy prevails. Did you all watch John Stewart last night?

It's all about the MONEY and CONTROL of the people. Not the climate.

Messages 26101 - 26120 of total 26443 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews