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.
Why wouldn't I laugh at the same repeated objection that you have had to my remarks?
Seriously, grow thicker skin.
No, not insecure, i thought you were being abrasive and I disliked the tone, perhaps I was wrong that it was abrasive.
Quote:
Seriously, I can understand you taking a position of "hopefulness" of it continuing, but to discount the significance of the deviation is simply an unreasonable adherence to a bias.
I don't think the deviation is significant.
Quote:
I think that time is important in the trend and a time has shown that the trend has not resumed your prediction of its course. You can go on and on about how you are simply scientifically evaluating the issue, but the fact remains that a 1/3 of the record has stalled and to claim it is a hiccup is devious, misguided or advantageous to a viewpoint. The record has stalled, and you can either admit such and say you are uncertain about its direction or you can simply tell everyone here you are rooting for a team and all of your commentary will reflect such a position.
Looking at the data until 1998, I don't think it would be a reasonable to expect in the next 12 years, if a warming trend continues one year must be warmer than 1998. With a noisy data set, such prediction is unreasonable.
Quote:
You keep going off about one specific year, but you fail to see the significance of its occurrence. It is the bind point. If we do not reach such, then we have not elevated.
I still don't understand why one year must be warmer than the previous warmest on record. Are you rejecting that there is year to year variation? Taking a running 5 year mean will smooth out much of the year to year variation.
Quote:
For all the sanity in the world your argument is based on that of one grasping at straws. You claim I am picking, but you are picking to dismiss. Look, we get it, you don't like the fact that 1998 happened, you pinned all your hopes at that time to use as you liked, but now... when the temps are falling, not increasing, you want to claim it is an anomaly? Sucker someone else, you aren't adhering to science, you are attempting to disregard data because it doesn't fit your little expectation. Deal, or pick something that fits your expectations better, because the fact that you can not control climate seems to be something that frustrates you and this is only a problem for those who expect observation to adhere to an hypothesis and if it doesn't fit, they want to twist it till it does. Sorry, but that isn't science.
You picked a comparison to a single very hot year. I am not rejecting that hot year or saying I wish to disregard it. Did you read my previous post? I said look at a group of years rather than focus on one single year. This should be done whether there is one unusual year or just "normal" years. Or as I said, fit a trend excluding the last decade, and see if that trend holds into the last decade, no weight on any particular year.
As I said before, the 1998 year is not an issue nor does it fail to satisfy the hypothesis. If you have year-to year variability (random noise) overlain on a warming trend, it is inevitable you will get spikes, and then possibly a long period that does not go above the previous spike.
This "plateau" after a warm spike has happened many times in the last few decades, it is meaningless. If you cherry pick the starting and end points you can get nothing but cooling since the 70s:
I made a matlab program (that was what I had handy; but you try something else even use excel functions) to show what a warming trend + random noise would look like. It shows the same spike and then long periods where the average temperature is higher but still doesn't reach the previous spike. Here's the code:
x = 0:1:35; % 36 year points on the x-axis
y = x*0.02; % a warming trend that is 0.02°/year
c = randn(1,36)*0.25 % Randomly gaussian distributed noise with a standard deviation of 0.25°
plot( x, y+c) % plotting the trend + noise (y + c) against time (x)
I attached the result. This is only from the first time I ran the program; if you run it another time it will look different; as the noise is random and different each time. You can see that there is a spike around year = 8 or so. Even though there is a warming trend, there is no year as warm as that one for my entire sample. But underlying the data there is (0.02° / year)* 35 years = 0.7° of warming!
My output looks a bit too noisy compared to real data perhaps the standard deviation I chose was a bit too high, but that made the effect of noise a bit more obvious in my image.
Quote:
The fact is you have ABSOLUTELY NO idea what will happen in the years to come. You can make predictions (btw, how has that worked out for those willing to proclaim such?), but in the end you have no clue.
I never said anything about predicting into the future. I was only talking about past data.
Quote:
I am not making a definitive. I have simply stated that out of a 30 year record, 10-12 years of it is showing a plateau. You on the other hand seem resigned to arguing that the plateau is an anomaly and that the trend is continuing to warm.
The plateau is not an anomaly, it is a relic of you choosing to use a particularly warm year as a starting point.
The green movement is a big money maker and they have made billions on politics and public sheepishness to sell the issue. They have gained a lot of power and control by getting people to believe there is some major climate issue going on.
So people shouldn't make money off of better managing our resources?
Quote:
The Climategate 1 and 2 emails/data show the entire thing to be politics and power plays by agenda and control groups.
Fortunately, their movement is sputtering out.
Maybe we can actually see science return to the field.
I absolutely love this line of reasoning...
I'm just going to assume you are a Republican (but it really applies to any ideology, belief, or theory that you have). So when an individual or group of individual Republicans does something illegal, abuses their power, or twist conservatism for political gain did you stop being conservative?
It's funny how hypocritical you humans are. When it's something you strongly believe in and something tarnishes that belief you can shrug or justify it. BUT when a belief you don't agree is tarnished by individuals....
You don't know the start and end points of the trend. How on earth can you possibly even begin to evaluate a continued rise? As I said, it has plateaued, it could increase, but as we see now, it has not. Stop treating the issue as if the 30 year record was a controlled experiment to which you can make such definite statements. The fact is, you have NO clue. The fact is, climate/weather is a chaotic system. The fact is you have ABSOLUTELY NO idea what will happen in the years to come. You can make predictions (btw, how has that worked out for those willing to proclaim such?), but in the end you have no clue.
My statement stands. The trend has stopped for the last 10-12 years. Could it increase again on an increasing trend? Sure... Could it drop? Sure... Neither of us knows and to claim so would make you an outright liar.
So why bother planning for anything as the world itself is a chaotic system?
"We" learn about it? No, I told you to learn about it.
But I'll bite:
Using the best information available you plan around that. It will probably be many many decades before we assert some sort of mastery over our climate and even then there will be somethings we can't control; such as, our sun and volcanic activity. We can come up with the best plan available to address our climate issue and it could all be for naught because some super volcano decides to erupt and throws our climate into a terrible mess.
However, a huge solar flare could send us back to the dark ages or a long overdue asteroid could wipe us out. You plan with the assumption that us humans are going to be on this planet for the long haul.
Last edited by dv1033; 01-12-2012 at 10:57 PM..
Reason: grammar
I will accept global warming for the time being, just like I accept the big bang theory. Someday it might be proven to be untrue, or more likely, simply more complicated.
So why bother planning for anything as the world itself is a chaotic system?
Planning for what?
If you can't properly identify a problem, then what point is there to planning? How can you plan a solution if you do not know the problem, or if there is even one? Wouldn't you just be guessing and then wasting resources to which you have no clue if your implementation will help or hinder?
How about we stick to things we can solidly identify according to proper scientific process and leave the divination process to the tribal groups of the world?
No, not insecure, i thought you were being abrasive and I disliked the tone, perhaps I was wrong that it was abrasive.
I don't think the deviation is significant.
Looking at the data until 1998, I don't think it would be a reasonable to expect in the next 12 years, if a warming trend continues one year must be warmer than 1998. With a noisy data set, such prediction is unreasonable.
I still don't understand why one year must be warmer than the previous warmest on record. Are you rejecting that there is year to year variation? Taking a running 5 year mean will smooth out much of the year to year variation.
You picked a comparison to a single very hot year. I am not rejecting that hot year or saying I wish to disregard it. Did you read my previous post? I said look at a group of years rather than focus on one single year. This should be done whether there is one unusual year or just "normal" years. Or as I said, fit a trend excluding the last decade, and see if that trend holds into the last decade, no weight on any particular year.
As I said before, the 1998 year is not an issue nor does it fail to satisfy the hypothesis. If you have year-to year variability (random noise) overlain on a warming trend, it is inevitable you will get spikes, and then possibly a long period that does not go above the previous spike.
This "plateau" after a warm spike has happened many times in the last few decades, it is meaningless. If you cherry pick the starting and end points you can get nothing but cooling since the 70s:
I made a matlab program (that was what I had handy; but you try something else even use excel functions) to show what a warming trend + random noise would look like. It shows the same spike and then long periods where the average temperature is higher but still doesn't reach the previous spike. Here's the code:
x = 0:1:35; % 36 year points on the x-axis
y = x*0.02; % a warming trend that is 0.02°/year
c = randn(1,36)*0.25 % Randomly gaussian distributed noise with a standard deviation of 0.25°
plot( x, y+c) % plotting the trend + noise (y + c) against time (x)
I attached the result. This is only from the first time I ran the program; if you run it another time it will look different; as the noise is random and different each time. You can see that there is a spike around year = 8 or so. Even though there is a warming trend, there is no year as warm as that one for my entire sample. But underlying the data there is (0.02° / year)* 35 years = 0.7° of warming!
My output looks a bit too noisy compared to real data perhaps the standard deviation I chose was a bit too high, but that made the effect of noise a bit more obvious in my image.
I never said anything about predicting into the future. I was only talking about past data.
The plateau is not an anomaly, it is a relic of you choosing to use a particularly warm year as a starting point.
Noise...
Your entire position is based on noise.
You keep saying you are not talking about "predicting into the future", yet your entire evaluation is that of concluding that the trend will keep increasing. So yes, you are predicting such as your entire argument is about picking out past "noise" occurrences (extremely short spans to which you can not scientifically validate to your mention) and attempting to suggest it is a pattern, more specifically one of consistent occurrence to which suggests this flat line is re-occurring and simply a continuation of warming. You have absolutely NO proper support to make such a declaration. Your method is hokum through correlative evaluation.
I have stated no specific means to a conclusion other than to say that the trend has stalled. It could increase, it could decrease, any attempt to state otherwise is pure speculation and as useful as rolling dice to see which way it turns.
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.
