5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn't Happening (place, prediction, compare)
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.
One warm month or even year does not change a trend.
If you would have read my post above you would know that there are several different scientifically valid global thermometers of the planet's temperature. The RSS satellite data show that there has been no warming for 18 years and 1 month. Therefore, his statement is scientifically accurate. Some of the other methods both satellite and land based show that we have indeed warmed the past 18 years, and that the pause is much shorter.
It is not the way it is presented. First, no error bars, significance levels, or anything usual in statistics. Picking an arbitary starting point is not valid, changing the starting point can give a different result, giving a misleading significance. This illustrates the concept:
It is not the way it is presented. First, no error bars, significance levels, or anything usual in statistics. Picking an arbitary starting point is not valid, changing the starting point can give a different result, giving a misleading significance. This illustrates the concept:
He is NOT picking an arbitrary starting point. He is picking the point furthest back that you can go without getting warming. I even had a thread about this very topic (I will go post NASA data there now if you're interested). Most people do not discuss error when discussing the latest data. For example, the NASA data says September was the warmest September on record by 0.04 degrees C. No margin of error given there. Given the margin of error, I'd say we don't know for sure if September 2014 was indeed warmer than 2005, but academically speaking, I'm good with the headline.
He is NOT picking an arbitrary starting point. He is picking the point furthest back that you can go without getting warming. I even had a thread about this very topic (I will go post NASA data there now if you're interested).
That's cherrypicking by definition, because you're changing your starting point for the result you want.
Quote:
Most people do not discuss error when discussing the latest data. For example, the NASA data says September was the warmest September on record by 0.04 degrees C. No margin of error given there. Given the margin of error, I'd say we don't know for sure if September 2014 was indeed warmer than 2005, but academically speaking, I'm good with the headline.
That's cherrypicking by definition, because you're changing your starting point for the result you want.
No, it does not give you the result you want. Instead, it just gives you the result the data will give you, hence the reason RSS, UAH, and GISS all give you a different result. The answer is a year, and varies depending on the data.
Let's give another example: Crime rates. Crime rates rocketed up in the 70s and 80s, peaked in the early 2000s, and have dropped ever since (give or take the odd blip). Now, if we start from when records began around 1960, crime is on the upward trend, but that's not a very relevant statement for today. Some people think crime is still going up, so what we do to counter this assertion is to graph the data, and say, "Crime has been coming down steadily for more than 20 years, and there has been no crime increase since 1975." (I'm guessing on the date without the data in front of me.) This was NOT an arbitrarily picked date. Instead, it picked because it's the furthest back we can go that shows a lack of crime increase. The number is quite useful. If the answer were 2006, the meaning would be quite different.
Same goes for global warming. 6 years without warming is really not that impressive. 12 years is interesting, and 18 years starts to get impressive because scientists say we need at least 17 years to filter out the noise. Given the fact that not all data sets are in agreement with the 18 years, we still have a long way to go to impress me, but on the other side of the coin, when we take into account the error bars, the temperature has been flat for 18 years.
One warm month or even year does not change a trend.
You said something about september 2014, so i replied.
Replied with arguably the warmest september we ever recorded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacierx
If you would have read my post above you would know that there are several different scientifically valid global thermometers of the planet's temperature. The RSS satellite data show that there has been no warming for 18 years and 1 month. Therefore, his statement is scientifically accurate. Some of the other methods both satellite and land based show that we have indeed warmed the past 18 years, and that the pause is much shorter.
Why is that, you ask? Because there is a margin of error. The website you've linked to say there has been no warming since 2002. By contrast, the skeptic data I referenced (UAH) shows no warming since 2008. The 18 year, 1 month pause started in 1996. No one knows for certain which hiatus start point is most accurate.
You simply musn't measure trends based on so short peroid of time. It's plainly stupid. Like judgeing a climate based on one year data.
And if you love this RSS data so much, why didn't you show us this?
You just picked a graph that starts with the biggest peak in history of records, totally out of trend and based on that you judge the trend. Manipulation at its best.
You plainly didn't read what I wrote. Nothing was cherrypicked so don't be so obtuse. I'll try to spoon feed this a little easier for you. When someone says (for example): "crime is up" because it is up since records began, how long do you have to go before crime is no longer considered on the increase? It is scientifically factual and accurate to make statements such as, "we have seen a crime rate drop since 1990" or "there has been no crime increase since 1975 (or whatever date that may be)." That is how statistics work, my friend.
I did not say I love RSS any more than UAH or GISS. Anyone can view all three of these data sets at the links provided in the last sentence. I've posted them before. I'm actually inclinded to take the middle route and go with GISS (just because I love falling for the Middle Ground fallacy), and say there is no warming since 2002 (which falls after the 1998 spike). This is a factual statement that manipulates no data. Only the data determines the answer. Nothing is cherrypicked whatsoever. The answer is 2002, and in my mind 12 years is not long enough to determine a long term trend be it crime or climate. 18 years starts getting interesting, but I will reserve judgement until more models start saying the same thing. I have never bought into the "we are heading to another ice age" theory because it uses the same speculative judgement calls people use who say sky is fall, and we will all burn up.
NOAA's thermometer assessment is not as accurate as satellite based measurements
They don't measure quite the same thing, satellite is from a bit further above ground.
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.