Conquer Club

I don't know too much about data manipulation, and will have to submit to your expertise.



I was shown this or a very similar graph in my climate change course. Looks like a very close correlation between CO2 and temperature.

But then I independently found out that temperature precedes CO2 rises by hundreds of years, how many hundreds? At minimum 300, but more like 600-800.

I wonder why the professors didn't mention that? Is this an example of data manipulation?

shickingbrits wrote:I don't know too much about data manipulation, and will have to submit to your expertise.



I was shown this or a very similar graph in my climate change course. Looks like a very close correlation between CO2 and temperature.

But then I independently found out that temperature precedes CO2 rises by hundreds of years, how many hundreds? At minimum 300, but more like 600-800.

I wonder why the professors didn't mention that? Is this an example of data manipulation?

Leaving data out is one method of data manipulation, if you have the data you left out and it is important. At my school, it is listed under academic misconduct policy.

The data manipulation max was referring to is a more insidious data manipulation. They chose the years 1979-1983. Normally if people are going to do an average they will do a) a line of best fit through the data or b) the average from all the data that is not shown on the graph. They chose neither of these options and instead chose some arbitrary years to average. Usually (99%) when someone does this, it is because the graph looks prettiest if they chose those specific years. Luckily, that kind of data manipulation doesn't get to print since it is so obvious.

Sorry Doom, but I was educated to be a moron, so are you saying that every single climate model wasn't wrong predicting temperature increase due to CO2?

shickingbrits wrote:Sorry Doom, but I was educated to be a moron, so are you saying that every single climate model wasn't wrong predicting temperature increase due to CO2?

I wouldn't know, but the graph doesn't show that.

The graph shows that temperature has increased from the 1979-1983 average. Why wouldn't they just put it in absolute terms (model A predicted 30deg global average, real global average was 29.3 as opposed to model A predicted 0.2 deg change from 1979-1983 average[does any model strive for those terms... I doubt it] real change was 0.02 deg). That implies that something really fishy is going on. Also, how many climate models were there in 1983?

I just thought of another thing. I don't know of any model that predicts exact numbers. Usually they predict a range. Another way to amp up that graph would be to only use highest possible predictions.

Oh now I agree with you. Thanks for showing a graph from 1970 to present, that's so much more compelling than 1979.

What was the hottest year in the century?
If you look at the graph going back 430,000 years (why not 480,000 right, I mean what are they hiding?) what would you predict would happen to temperature naturally at this point(let's ignore how reckless less developed people were/are with their carbon emissions)?
Who cares if temperature preceded CO2 emissions by centuries creating more environments for growth which then retain heat? (I'm starting to feel guilty about planting all the trees and messing with earth's natural cycle which should be heading down to -9 C).
What happened to the medieval warming period shown in the first report the IPCC did and not in subsequent ones?

As I said a few pages back, I think the alarmists crowd is 97% (when they include deniers in their consensus) correct and there's no need to spend $50b to reach 99%. So are we happy to defund them now?

shickingbrits wrote:sabotaged

--Andy

shickingbrits wrote:Oh now I agree with you. Thanks for showing a graph from 1970 to present, that's so much more compelling than 1979.

What was the hottest year in the century?
If you look at the graph going back 430,000 years (why not 480,000 right, I mean what are they hiding?) what would you predict would happen to temperature naturally at this point(let's ignore how reckless less developed people were/are with their carbon emissions)?
Who cares if temperature preceded CO2 emissions by centuries creating more environments for growth which then retain heat? (I'm starting to feel guilty about planting all the trees and messing with earth's natural cycle which should be heading down to -9 C).
What happened to the medieval warming period shown in the first report the IPCC did and not in subsequent ones?

As I said a few pages back, I think the alarmists crowd is 97% (when they include deniers in their consensus) correct and there's no need to spend $50b to reach 99%. So are we happy to defund them now?

Why do you believe "earth's natural cycle" will be -9 C at some unspecified time?

Why do you believe planting trees stops global warming?

shickingbrits wrote:

I was shown this or a very similar graph in my climate change course. Looks like a very close correlation between CO2 and temperature.

But then I independently found out that temperature precedes CO2 rises by hundreds of years, how many hundreds? At minimum 300, but more like 600-800.

I wonder why the professors didn't mention that? Is this an example of data manipulation?

I don't know why they didn't mention it, but probably because it doesn't matter. There aren't many internal natural mechanisms that can just start spontaneously shooting out enough carbon dioxide to change long-term climate evolution* -- you need some sort of external trigger to begin that process before the runaway feedback process can start. In these interglacial periods, the trigger is probably changes in solar forcings due to orbital variations. Once this starts releasing some extra CO2, that's enough to begin the feedback process, and then you start getting more water in the atmosphere, etc. Indeed, whether or not temperature changes were what triggered the feedback loop from starting, the feedback loop definitely happened, because the changes in solar forcing are way too weak to explain the observed warming. From our perspective, we should be worried either way. The temperature has already warmed, by nearly 1 degree Celsius, and if that generally causes huge feedback loops, the type that differentiate ice ages from warm interglacial periods, we should be worried.

*Volcanoes have been explained as a possible mechanism, I believe, but I think they are not currently favored.

DY wrote:The graph shows that temperature has increased from the 1979-1983 average. Why wouldn't they just put it in absolute terms (model A predicted 30deg global average, real global average was 29.3 as opposed to model A predicted 0.2 deg change from 1979-1983 average[does any model strive for those terms... I doubt it] real change was 0.02 deg). That implies that something really fishy is going on. Also, how many climate models were there in 1983?

Yeah, this is basically the problem. If you pick some arbitrary small period of years as a starting point, it's very easy to manipulate the data. Notice how up until about maybe 2004 or so, there's very good agreement in the trend of the data, it's just offset vertically from the observed surface temperature. This is an artifact of the particular years he chose. If you use a different baseline, particularly one that's longer, you generally see good agreement between the CMIP models and the empirical data for many decades of the 20th century. It's only around the 2004 point that the models start to slightly diverge from the data, because the slowdown in surface temperatures we saw for about 10-15 years was not really expected.

Mets,

Just when I was starting to feel sorry for you. That PhD must be expensive. Your theory is quickly losing government support and you are likely headed to a debtors prison. I was on the verge of offering you a spot of land, some tires and firebricks to build a little place out of, maybe even some of my secret hempcrete stash. I know you probably have no practical skills, so I was going to teach you about hugelkultur, simple building skills and to wipe your ass.

But after that post, you best start lobbying for a student loan amnesty instead.

Hey Doom, isn't it funny how your graph and my graph both use the same method of measuring, and my graph and your graph show the same change from 1983? Some would say then that your graph agrees with mine.

shickingbrits wrote:Why do you believe planting trees stops global warming?

Oh, that's my belief? It'll STOP global warming? You're funny.

But wait, nice dodge!

Surely, someone as scientifically minded as you would be willing to demonstrate that "earth's natural cycle" will be -9 C at some unspecified time, right?

History.

shickingbrits wrote: Just when I was starting to feel sorry for you. That PhD must be expensive. Your theory is quickly losing government support and you are likely headed to a debtors prison. I was on the verge of offering you a spot of land, some tires and firebricks to build a little place out of, maybe even some of my secret hempcrete stash. I know you probably have no practical skills, so I was going to teach you about hugelkultur, simple building skills and to wipe your ass.

But after that post, you bet start lobbying for a student loan amnesty instead.

I am getting paid to do my research. By the federal government. Write to your Congressman if you don't like it.

That's perfect. The government pays you to lobby them to get a tax.

shickingbrits wrote:That's perfect. The government pays you to lobby them to get a tax.

*takes a bow*

shickingbrits wrote:History.

In other words, ya got nothing. Good job, sabotage.

I got history, if you think of that as nothing, it explains a lot.

shickingbrits wrote: Hey Doom, isn't it funny how your graph and my graph both use the same method of measuring, and my graph and your graph show the same change from 1983? Some would say then that your graph agrees with mine.

I don't get the humor. I was showing an example of data manipulation. I don't see the same data anywhere...

Your realist graph and my climate model show the same temperature change over the 1983-2012 period.

Which means, if you believe your graph is plotted correctly, then you believe the real temperature is plotted correctly.

shickingbrits wrote:Your realist graph and my climate model show the same temperature change over the 1983-2012 period.

Which means, if you believe your graph is plotted correctly, then you believe the real temperature is plotted correctly.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy- ... ption.html

Read this. Then comment there if you disagree.

Sorry Mets, now that I realize your posts are costing taxpayers money, would prefer you didn't direct any towards me.

shickingbrits wrote:Sorry Mets, now that I realize your posts are costing taxpayers money, would prefer you didn't direct any towards me.

Suck it up, cupcake.

shickingbrits wrote:Your realist graph and my climate model show the same temperature change over the 1983-2012 period.

Which means, if you believe your graph is plotted correctly, then you believe the real temperature is plotted correctly.

No they do not show the same temperature change, nor are they showing the same thing. One graph is showing temperature change from an arbitrary average. The other is an animation showing how easy it is to cherrypick data. I'm not even sure if the numbers are correct, but they certainly aren't the same. Graph 1 shows a max change in temp of 0.3 Graph 2 shows a max change around 0.5. Not even similar.