Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me take this a step further ..... as I've previously said, Climate is not measured in decades, so the first clue that you're dealing with fabricated nonsense comes from ... "Since the 1950's .... balh, blah, blah ..."
The very elementary fact of making any comparison, whether it is "Global Warming" or the production of Jelly Beans is totally dictated by the two points of reference one chooses to use for that comparison.
For example, (these are hypothetical numbers that I'm making up for the purpose of illustrating the point) .... let's say we want to show a rise in average temperature to prove global warming .... so we select December, 1950 average temp of 48 degrees (because it was unusually cold that winter) .... and then compare it to December of 1989's average of 57 degrees (because it was unusually warm that winter) ... showing a 9 degree differential. But if we had selected 1949 as the starting point when the average was a normal 53 degrees, and selected an end point of 1996 when it was an unusually cold 49 degrees, it would show a DECLINE in temperature average of 4 degrees. Do you see how this works?
The reality is, the old saying is true .... figures lie, and liars figure. Climate must be measured over very long stretches of time, because there are natural variations in warming and cooling trends, and depending on which points in that record you select, you can show whatever you want to show ... warming or cooling.
It really amazes me that people fall for this "slight of hand" trickery. It's childlike nonsense ... making shadow figures on the wall with your hand ... very entertaining for young children, but we adults should require more sophisticated entertainment ... like "Family Guy" and "The Simpson's"
You are describing the classic denier cherry pick: take the super hot El Nino year of 1998 (or any record year) as your starting point and claim that the Earth's been cooling since then.
The mainstream science approach is different: they take a baseline of 30 years for surface measurements (satellite measurements use 20 years as their data starts in 1979). By averaging the temperature over that period they reduce the effect of outliers and cyclical variations.
Then, for the anomalies, they use running averages.
You are describing the classic denier cherry pick: take the super hot El Nino year of 1998 (or any record year) as your starting point and claim that the Earth's been cooling since then.
The mainstream science approach is different: they take a baseline of 30 years for surface measurements (satellite measurements use 20 years as their data starts in 1979). By averaging the temperature over that period they reduce the effect of outliers and cyclical variations.
Then, for the anomalies, they use running averages.
17 Oct 10 - "Antarctic sea ice reached its annual maximum in September. September 2010 was the third largest sea ice extent on record (2.3 percent above average), behind 2006 (largest) and 2007 (second largest).
"According to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, the continent received an average precipitation of 1.91 inches (48.4 mm) during September — nearly double the 1961–1990 average and the highest September value on record.
"Keep in mind that at an average temperature of -60 C extra precipitation is SNOW. And a new record. But don’t expect the MSM (mainstream media) to report it."
There are many other accounts of growing Ice .... near record amounts, and a general cooling all around the globe.
What's next for you people? We have drowning polar bears (one of the earth's most proficient swimmers) ..... maybe Christmas is in jeopardy as Santa's workshop may be flooded due to the melting ice on the North Pole?
Best ever advert for taking your own advice: he links to ANTARCTIC sea ice.
In 1842 the "Isle of the Dead" in SE Tasmania was selected for the site of a "Mean Sea Level" refernce mark by Capt. James Clark Ross. Today this mark can clearly be seen 35 cm ABOVE the current mean sea level.
you cant deny it
Where does your data on this come from?
(Not that it's particularly relevent in the context of global sea level rise.)
You are describing the classic denier cherry pick: take the super hot El Nino year of 1998 (or any record year) as your starting point and claim that the Earth's been cooling since then.
The mainstream science approach is different: they take a baseline of 30 years for surface measurements (satellite measurements use 20 years as their data starts in 1979). By averaging the temperature over that period they reduce the effect of outliers and cyclical variations.
Then, for the anomalies, they use running averages.
I've looked for the underlying data analysis for those charts, but haven't been able to find them.
Typically, one expresses more than just a chart of annual means. I'm looking for the confidence intervals, to determine if the change reported in the charts is statistically significant, or a spurious function of the data sample size/distribution.
Otherwise, there's no way to determine if the chart shows anything of signifigance.
So if you can find the confidence intervals for those means, I would appreciate it if you pointed me in the right direction.
Edit: I've found some charts with uncertainty estimates for each individual temperature, but not for the entire graph.
You are describing the classic denier cherry pick: take the super hot El Nino year of 1998 (or any record year) as your starting point and claim that the Earth's been cooling since then.
No .. this is just correcting the blatant lie that it was warming during that period of time ... which the declining temps show to be a farce.
I've repeatedly stated that "climate" cannot be measured in decades, but that doesn't mean that we cannot point to the very periods the Global Warmists claim warming is occurring when it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turboblocke
The mainstream science approach is different: they take a baseline of 30 years for surface measurements (satellite measurements use 20 years as their data starts in 1979). By averaging the temperature over that period they reduce the effect of outliers and cyclical variations.
Then, for the anomalies, they use running averages.
Nope ... sorry ... mainstream science fraud chooses to leave out the Medieval Warm Period in the Global Temperature Scamming Charts because it would ruin the nice upward trend and hide the the FACT that temperatures were higher then than they are now. And if I have to spell it out for you ... we had a warm period, followed by a cooling period and a mini ice age, followed by a warming period that can be considered a natural cycle, with the current trend of the 20th century simply returning to normal temperature levels after a small ice age period. And indeed that is what has happened, and the current SCARE and FEAR MONGERING is a total farce. We haven't even reached past temperature levels which have already been established as NORMAL, since (just a wild guess) there were much fewer cars on the road, and fewer power plants when King Arthur and the round table met to discuss how to cool down the castle.
Nowhere else can I find a greater example of hypocrisy and extreme irony than for Global Warming Scammers to claim others are "cherry picking" data and facts. What a SHAMELESS bunch you are.
Best ever advert for taking your own advice: he links to ANTARCTIC sea ice.
Again, it's a direct response to the false claim that the ice is disappearing rapidly ... or that the polar bears are drowning in droves, when both claims are proven to be lies by the facts.
Every year, the Arctic shrinks in the warmer months and then expands in the colder ones ... it's normal and nothing to be alarmed about, and certainly no proof of impending planetary doom.
But don't take my word for it ... take the expert on the Arctic Climate ... he should know ... dontcha think?
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, received his PhD in geophysics in 1961. He has published more than 550 professional journal articles, authored or co-authored 10 books and has been the invited author of many encyclopedia articles. Twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," he has been honored by the Royal Astronomical Society of London, the Japan Academy of Sciences and the American Geophysical Union. In 2003, he received the Order of the Sacred Treasure, Gold and Silver Star, from the Emperor of Japan. As director of the university's Geophysical Institute in 1986-99, he helped establish it as a key research center in the Arctic. He also helped establish the Alaska Volcano Observatory.
I've looked for the underlying data analysis for those charts, but haven't been able to find them.
Typically, one expresses more than just a chart of annual means. I'm looking for the confidence intervals, to determine if the change reported in the charts is statistically significant, or a spurious function of the data sample size/distribution.
Otherwise, there's no way to determine if the chart shows anything of signifigance.
So if you can find the confidence intervals for those means, I would appreciate it if you pointed me in the right direction.
Edit: I've found some charts with uncertainty estimates for each individual temperature, but not for the entire graph.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
