Global Warming Stuff

[Metsfanmax]

the vertical axis needs to be defined so that you can use it to judge how strong the correlation is.

Correlation strength is not affected by the magnitude of the scale.

Of course it is. If the scale of something is from -1 to 1, then huge loopy sine waves definitely mean something significant. If the scale runs from 98 parts per million of something to 99 parts per million, then those same scary-looking sine wave loops are nothing but signal noise.

The three vertical axis' dont go below zero (assuming kelvin for temperature).

Ok first, you don't know that. It is listed as "fluctuation of temperature" so it very well could be a measure of difference from some long-term average, in which case the temperature graph likely would go below zero. Second, that's not the point he was making. The argument is that we don't know the size of those variations relative to the actual temperature from this graph, so he is correct in saying that we can't judge the strength of the correlation. Third, this discussion could have been avoided if the graph actually had axes, which is the real point.

(If you click through to the source of that image, it should be rather clear why we might not expect too much rigor.)

[Dukasaur]

the vertical axis needs to be defined so that you can use it to judge how strong the correlation is.

Correlation strength is not affected by the magnitude of the scale.

Of course it is. If the scale of something is from -1 to 1, then huge loopy sine waves definitely mean something significant. If the scale runs from 98 parts per million of something to 99 parts per million, then those same scary-looking sine wave loops are nothing but signal noise.

The three vertical axis' dont go below zero (assuming kelvin for temperature).

That's precisely the point.... we don't know what they go below.

Let's take the purple line that says "Concentration of CO2 in the Atmosphere." If the fluctuations shown are between 100 ppm and 400 ppm, then that's a pretty huge fluctuation. On the other hand, if the fluctuation shown is between 282 ppm and 285 ppm, then that's a pretty small fluctuation. Without defining the axis, you can't know.

Even assuming the green line is in Kelvin (a pretty big assumption -- don't know why you'd pick Kelvin but let's go with it) what is the range? Is the top of the graph 295 Kelvin and the bottom of the graph 260 Kelvin? Or what?

We can try to make some assumptions to help him out. The warm Cambrian Period is probably 295 Kelvin, and the deep troughs in the Pleistocene are probably 260 Kelvin. We shouldn't have to. This should be stated.

[Phatscotty]

The bottom line is that it's possible what we've seen in the last 20-30 years is totally normal.

[Metsfanmax]

The bottom line is that it's possible what we've seen in the last 20-30 years is totally normal.

No, there is no evidence in any of the measurements we have that the last 20-30 years are normal. They are strikingly unusual compared to the historical record. You can of course retreat to the "well ANYTHING is possible" bleating, but then you are no longer engaging in a discussion about the science, you are just plugging your ears.

[mrswdk]

[tzor]

The bottom line is that it's possible what we've seen in the last 20-30 years is totally normal.

I refuse to believe Bill Clinton was "Normal." And then you have the Bushes and Obama, how could you say it was "normal?"

Oh wait, that's not what we were talking about. Never mind.

[tzor]

I should point out that many cities in the United States have taken a page from China's not too well publicized playbook and switched their buses to natural gas.



Of course we don't exactly do it they way they did in Zigong, Sichuan but still.

[tzor]

No, there is no evidence in any of the measurements we have that the last 20-30 years are normal.

Average Monthly & Annual Temperatures at Central Park 1869 - present.

Just looking at the 00's I see the following:
1870 53.6
1880 53.2
1890 52.7
1900 53.8
1910 53.2
1920 52.3
1930 54.5
1940 51.9
1950 53.6
1960 54.0
1970 54.3
1980 55.0
1990 57.2
2000 53.9
2010 56.7

And I'm sure that any changes here had NOTHING to do with continued development around Central Park.

I'm seriously having a hard time finding the non natural part here.

[Neoteny]

Is it because CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas? Do you have to literally see the carbon cycle to comprehend how it works?

[Metsfanmax]

No, there is no evidence in any of the measurements we have that the last 20-30 years are normal.

Average Monthly & Annual Temperatures at Central Park 1869 - present.

Just looking at the 00's I see the following:
1870 53.6
1880 53.2
1890 52.7
1900 53.8
1910 53.2
1920 52.3
1930 54.5
1940 51.9
1950 53.6
1960 54.0
1970 54.3
1980 55.0
1990 57.2
2000 53.9
2010 56.7

And I'm sure that any changes here had NOTHING to do with continued development around Central Park.

I'm seriously having a hard time finding the non natural part here.

You have to know this is a specious argument. Look at the years bracketing 2000; 1999 averaged a temperature of 56.5 and 2001 averaged a temperature of 56.3. So if you had displaced your starting point by one year, your argument would be much different. And in that case, notice how the average of the last few decades is like 55-57, while the average of 1870-1900 was like 53-54. There is a clear trend here that is actually hard to ignore if you look at the data objectively. (Not that data from any single location tell us anything about global warming.)

[mrswdk]

It's like Lord Arioch said: when empires start dying, one of the best consequences is that morality goes out the window and people finally start enjoying themselves.

The world is (very slowly) flooding - just relax and have some fun

[Metsfanmax]

It's like Lord Arioch said: when empires start dying, one of the best effects is that morality goes out the window and people finally start enjoying themselves.

The world is (very slowly) flooding - just relax and have some fun

Morality is a way for us to get to the point where everyone can have fun, not just the privileged few who were born lucky enough not to have to work very hard to do it.

[mrswdk]

It's like Lord Arioch said: when empires start dying, one of the best effects is that morality goes out the window and people finally start enjoying themselves.

The world is (very slowly) flooding - just relax and have some fun

Morality is a way for us to get to the point where everyone can have fun, not just the privileged few who were born lucky enough not to have to work very hard to do it.

wut. Who are the 'privileged few'? Relatively wealthy people?

[Metsfanmax]

It's like Lord Arioch said: when empires start dying, one of the best effects is that morality goes out the window and people finally start enjoying themselves.

The world is (very slowly) flooding - just relax and have some fun

Morality is a way for us to get to the point where everyone can have fun, not just the privileged few who were born lucky enough not to have to work very hard to do it.

wut. Who are the 'privileged few'? Relatively wealthy people?

Those people who have enough resources that they don't generally have any problem meeting the basic needs to live (food, clothing, clean water, shelter, basic medical care, etc.).

[mrswdk]

[Phatscotty]

The bottom line is that it's possible what we've seen in the last 20-30 years is totally normal.

No, there is no evidence in any of the measurements we have that the last 20-30 years are normal. They are strikingly unusual compared to the historical record.

I thought you already admitted the historical record is incomplete? Let's talk about the historical record. For instance, the type of real time measurements about today that we take today... how long have we been taking those kinds of measurements?

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

1958 at Mauna Lau Observatory

[Neoteny]

Global warming is fake because thermometers.

[_sabotage_]

[Neoteny]

So, wait... are you guys for adjustments (Tzor's Central Park comment) or against adjustments (sabotage's figures posted completely without context)?

The movement to completely f*ck science is so uncohesive and incoherent that it almost seems like they are just throwing out anything they can to sow confusion and doubt. That would be dishonest and childish, though, so that can't be true.

Perhaps this lack of cohesion is a result of a variety of citizen scientists, using their own minds to sift through the data presented by the engineers and statisticians who clearly have no clue how to do their jobs, and not just parrotting the likes of Anthony Watts. Perhaps.

Maybe all climate deniers are actually respectable people, and all of their accounts have been hacked by malicious outside entities who take pleasure in sowing discord, and have no regard for privacy and scientific progress. That seems possible. Nobody likes hackers, or use the fruits of their labor to further ideological positions.

I dunno guys. But you aren't coming across as lucid or deep or, really, even self-aware.

[_sabotage_]

Sorry about the missing context: those are graphs showing actual temperature data vs climate alarmist adjusted data.

Hard to come off as lucid to a fuckwit.

[casper]

Guardian article from today...

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years

[waauw]

Putting this out there, in case anyone else got curious what they were adjusting:

However, manual adjustments are not, as some skeptics seem to argue, wrong or biased in all cases. There are real reasons for manual adjustments to data — for example, if GPS signal data was not adjusted for relativistic effects, the position data would quickly get out of whack. In the case of temperature data:

Data is adjusted for shifts in the start/end time for a day of measurement away from local midnight (ie if you average 24 hours starting and stopping at noon). This is called Time of Observation or TOBS. When I first encountered this, I was just sure it had to be BS. For a month of data, you are only shifting the data set by 12 hours or about 1/60 of the month. Fortunately for my self-respect, before I embarrassed myself I created a spreadsheet to monte carlo some temperature data and play around with this issue. I convinced myself the Time of Observation adjustment is valid in theory, though I have no way to validate its magnitude (one of the problems with all of these adjustments is that NOAA and other data authorities do not release the source code or raw data to show how they come up with these adjustments). I do think it is valid in science to question a finding, even without proof that it is wrong, when the authors of the finding refuse to share replication data. Steven Goddard, by the way, believes time of observation adjustments are exaggerated and do not follow NOAA’s own specification.
Stations move over time. A simple example is if it is on the roof of a building and that building is demolished, it has to move somewhere else. In an extreme example the station might move to a new altitude or a slightly different micro-climate. There are adjustments in the data base for these sort of changes. Skeptics have occasionally challenged these, but I have no reason to believe that the authors are not using best efforts to correct for these effects (though again the authors of these adjustments bring criticism on themselves for not sharing replication data).
The technology the station uses for measurement changes (e.g. thermometers to electronic devices, one type of electronic device to another, etc.) These measurement technologies sometimes have known biases. Correcting for such biases is perfectly reasonable (though a frustrated skeptic could argue that the government is diligent in correcting for new cooling biases but seldom corrects for warming biases, such as in the switch from bucket to water intake measurement of sea surface temperatures).
Even if the temperature station does not move, the location can degrade. The clearest example is a measurement point that once was in the country but has been engulfed by development (here is one example — this at one time was the USHCN measurement point with the most warming since 1900, but it was located in an open field in 1900 and ended up in an asphalt parking lot in the middle of Tucson.) Since urban heat islands can add as much as 10 degrees F to nighttime temperatures, this can create a warming signal over time that is related to a particular location, and not the climate as a whole. The effect is undeniable — my son easily measured it in a science fair project. The effect it has on temperature measurement is hotly debated between warmists and skeptics. Al Gore originally argued that there was no bias because all measurement points were in parks, which led Anthony Watts to pursue the surface station project where every USHCN station was photographed and documented. The net result was that most of the sites were pretty poor. Whatever the case, there is almost no correction in the official measurement numbers for urban heat island effects, and in fact last time I looked at it the adjustment went the other way, implying urban heat islands have become less of an issue since 1930. The folks who put together the indexes argue that they have smoothing algorithms that find and remove these biases. Skeptics argue that they just smear the bias around over multiple stations. The debate continues.

[Neoteny]

Sorry about the missing context: those are graphs showing actual temperature data vs climate alarmist adjusted data.

Hard to come off as lucid to a fuckwit.

Fuckwit or no, I can read graphs. I know what they're displaying. That's not context. I don't know what you're saying, other than "LOOKATTHISARENTUCONFUSEDLOLSCIENTISTSARELIED," or something along those lines. You don't have an argument. You can't support why adjustments shouldn't be made to trend data. You have a couple of pictures you found after googling "Al Gore is a punk," and posted them with the intention of sowing doubt in the scientific process.

As I mentioned previously, it's dishonest, it's childish, and, frankly, it's amusing in its transparency. To call me a fuckwit after the fact shows you're long on nerve, but short on spine, and very much self-unaware.

[_sabotage_]

Thats lovely. You are more of a fuckwit than I thought.