Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[lomiller]

But if we assume there is a bias from CO2 forcing, when do you think will we see it rear it's ugly head again?

What do you mean “again”? The long term trend line goes though ~0.40 deg C in 1998 and ~0.6 deg C in 2010 due to CO2 forcing.

[mhaze]

Crystal.

Again, perhaps I wasn't precise enough in my post. Let me try again:

...if I am not mistaken, projections were such that a deep solar minimum and perhaps other ENSO effects were not predicted to be enough to counteract anthropogenic forcings to any significant degree, even over short time periods.

But, it appears as if natural forcings (we certainly haven't cut back on CO2 emissions) have resulted in global temperatures anomalies which have remained pretty much constant since 2005.

IUmm, I've attributed this to the PDO (if you like , consider it a summation of ENSO stuff) and ignored the projections which you mention, thinking they were ridiculous.

Just assume a far lower CO2 sensitivity net of feedbacks and it all makes sense.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422447fc2a95d838c.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11660)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422447668425d8cb7.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9768)


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244723654333cdb.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8960)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422448db9c7a2e64c.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13916)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422447fe820aa4e19.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11680)

[lomiller]

Just assume a far lower CO2 sensitivity net of feedbacks and it all makes sense.


All of it except ice ages, the medieval warm period, the little ice age and, well, just about everything really

[BenBurch]

NP, good luck on the review!


:cheerleader5

Thanks. One of my team members was so responsible and in-tune with the demands of the job that he left some time before 2:30... I was there til 8.

:eek:

[mhaze]

All of it except ice ages, the medieval warm period, the little ice age and, well, just about everything reallyMore to the topic, less to the derail attempt :

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/09/mojib-latif-warns-ipcc-of-cooling.html

It is actually a heresy among the IPCC members to even think about the possibility that 10-20 years in the future won't see any discernible global warming - despite the fact that this is precisely what has happened in the previous 10 years (and even 15 years, when you insist on statistical significance).

The bulk of these people is completely detached from reality. I think that they must either literally believe that it is strictly impossible for another decade of no-warming or cooling to take place; or they must believe that they're able to prevent the remaining 6.8 billion people from noticing or talking about the fact if it becomes a fact by 2019 or 2029.

[Wangler]

Thanks. One of my team members was so responsible and in-tune with the demands of the job that he left some time before 2:30... I was there til 8.

:eek:

Nice..gotta love that!

:jaw-dropp

[Wangler]

What do you mean “again”? The long term trend line goes though ~0.40 deg C in 1998 and ~0.6 deg C in 2010 due to CO2 forcing.

Are you talking about the long term trend line from IPCC? Or some other temperature plot?

[lomiller]

It’s not the “IPCC tend line” it’s simply the 30 year trend in the dataset. While this can vary a bit based on exactly how the trend was calculated it won’t change very much.

[macdoc]

Wangler about the only time GW stopped recently is Pinatubo where the actual amount of incoming radiation was knocked down.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5568/727

Excepting that, the physics don't quit.

Volcanoes can have very long term effects

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7077/full/439675a.html

[Wangler]

Wangler about the only time GW stopped recently is Pinatubo where the actual amount of incoming radiation was knocked down.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5568/727

Excepting that, the physics don't quit.

Volcanoes can have very long term effects

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7077/full/439675a.html

I understand what you mean..the physics didn't quit then either...the volcano acted to reduce the net uptake of energy by the planet by blocking some solar?

[Wangler]

It’s not the “IPCC tend line” it’s simply the 30 year trend in the dataset. While this can vary a bit based on exactly how the trend was calculated it won’t change very much.

How far back does this trend go? Only thirty years? Or is it based upon a 30-year running average?

[Pixel42]

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

NSIDC scientists expect to see the minimum ice extent for the year in the next few weeks. While this year's minimum ice extent will probably not reach the record low of 2007, it remains well below normal: average ice extent for August 2009 was the third-lowest in the satellite record. Ice extent has now fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the third-lowest extent in the satellite record.


Doesn't this settle a bet between a couple of posters here?

[macdoc]

I understand what you mean..the physics didn't quit then either...the volcano acted to reduce the net uptake of energy by the planet by blocking some solar?

You got it

Reducing one forcing - incoming energy -offset the other trapping energy in the system.

The atmosphere/geo-system will hunt for an equilibrium for centuries into the future and the more C02 we pump in - the longer it will take to get new equilibrium.

The train is left the station and the only way to get it back is to actively reduce C02 to pre industrial levels...:boggled:

Even then the lag in response might mean things like methane release might overwhelm our efforts.....the engineering would would be massive.

It would be far better if we could figure out a way to enhance the biological carbon sinks we already have AND get quickly to carbon neutral.....

don't be holding your breath about that happening.....:garfield:

••

High ice loss in the Beaufort Sea and Siberian Arctic
This August, the Beaufort Sea lost more ice than in either 2007 or 2008. In other regions of the Arctic, ice loss rates were about the same as in August 2007, except in the central Arctic, where more ice was lost in 2007. These year-to-year differences in regional ice loss rates reflect variations in surface wind and temperature patterns that affect the ice motion and melt.

Likely reflects the warm Pacific current encroaching further - the retreat of the ice pack in the Beaufort is astonishing - fishing rules have to be re-written and new species are moving in...

[lomiller]

How far back does this trend go? Only thirty years? Or is it based upon a 30-year running average?

A trend line is a linear best fit to the data, in this case the past 30 years. 30 year running average would be a smoothed plot of that same data, there are better smoothing techniques available then a simple running average. A linear approximation is the simplest and therefore preferred explanation for the data.

The fact that 8 of the last 9 years fall above that trend could suggest that warming has accelerated, but to my knowledge they are not significant enough to constitute proof. The years that were above trend were probably a consequence of El Nino, as soon as we hit a La Nina in 2008 global temperatures were right back in line with the 30 year trend.

[BenBurch]

And the trend is a WARMING trend.

[Wangler]

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/




Doesn't this settle a bet between a couple of posters here?

Nooooooooooooooooooo..............

:bricks:

[mhaze]

A trend line is a linear best fit to the data, in this case the past 30 years....So you have, climatically speaking - quick check - yes the subject of the thread is climate -

One data point.

[BenBurch]

You keep repeating the "one data point" lie, MHaze. Its MILLIONS of data points.

[mhaze]

Sure, Ben. But summing them for 30 year norms,we get 1 climatic data point.

We were discussing climate, right? Not weather?

[lomiller]

the 30 year norm is a trend line...

[BenBurch]

That is not ONE data point. If it were, there could be no trend. It is MILLIONS of sensor readings averaged over decades.

One data point would be if I read my thermometer at 3:15 PM on June 2nd in 1980, and that was all the data I had...

[mhaze]

the 30 year norm is a trend line...Sounds...trendy.. ..

wait...that would take a succession of 30 year numbers like a decade apart. So you guys are hunting around for global warming, basically in weather?

[Wangler]

Sounds...trendy.. ..

wait...that would take a succession of 30 year numbers like a decade apart. So you guys are hunting around for global warming, basically in weather?

No, aren't we talking about a 30 year average, like thus (for example):

point 1: average of 1951-1980
point 2: average of 1952-1981
point 3: average of 1953-1982
...
...

[mhaze]

No, aren't we talking about a 30 year average, like thus (for example):

point 1: average of 1951-1980
point 2: average of 1952-1981
point 3: average of 1953-1982
...
...Hey, I accept that. But not this looking within the last 30 years for climatic wisdom.

You have generated three data points.

[Wangler]

Hey, I accept that. But not this looking within the last 30 years for climatic wisdom.

You have generated three data points.

I know, but I meant it as a continuing series, which will produce a smoothed graph of annual data that will be useful for discerning trends in climate.

Right?

[mhaze]

I know, but I meant it as a continuing series, which will produce a smoothed graph of annual data that will be useful for discerning trends in climate.

Right?Yes. Although some would disapprove of the dilution of facts by the smoothing, but it is the established definition of climate as opposed to weather.

[Wangler]

Yes. Although some would disapprove of the dilution of facts by the smoothing, but it is the established definition of climate as opposed to weather.

So what you do is average over the smallest interval that makes sense, so you can have your cake and eat it too.

Where does the 30-year number come from?

I hear "30 years is climate" and "less than 30 years is weather"....

but who decides? What is the basis? Anyone have a reference?

[lomiller]

I know, but I meant it as a continuing series, which will produce a smoothed graph of annual data that will be useful for discerning trends in climate.

Right?

The point of differentiating weather and climate is that weather is subject to short term chaotic effects and can therefore show significant random natural variation around the attractor (normal expected value). Since these are randomly distributed around the attractor the longer the period you look at the smaller their impact.

If you want to find out what the attractor is doing you need to look at a long enough time period for any trend to show up against the background noise. As a rule of thumb this means looking at a period of 20-30 years, but larger movements can be seen in shorter periods.

What mhaze really really wants to do is look at shorter trend and draw conclusions from it. If one looks at the last 10 years you get a warming trend of ~0.05 deg/dec, but the error bars are +/-0.3 deg. This time period simply cannot tell you if the long term trend of ~0.2 deg/dec has stopped, the natural variation is still to large.

[macdoc]

Damn critters acting out again.....:garfield:

Dramatic Biological Responses To Global Warming In The Arctic

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910142348.htm

snip

The Arctic as we know it may soon be a thing of the past, according to the research of a large, international team

[CapelDodger]

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/




Doesn't this settle a bet between a couple of posters here?

Pretty much. I for one was wrong.

Damn, I hate that ... :mad:

[CapelDodger]

So what you do is average over the smallest interval that makes sense, so you can have your cake and eat it too.

Where does the 30-year number come from?

I hear "30 years is climate" and "less than 30 years is weather"....

but who decides? What is the basis? Anyone have a reference?

30 years is the consensus view. It's not judgement handed down. 30 years spans a few solar cycles and slightly more ENSO cycles. A period long enough to take out significant amounts of noise.

[CapelDodger]

What mhaze really really wants to do is look at shorter trend and draw conclusions from it. If one looks at the last 10 years you get a warming trend of ~0.05 deg/dec, but the error bars are +/-0.3 deg. This time period simply cannot tell you if the long term trend of ~0.2 deg/dec has stopped, the natural variation is still to large.

I think the deniers will remember this decade as their Glory Days. A fortuitous decade with no marked surface warming trend, quite in line with model projections. They've nailed their flag so securely to this happy chance that they've no chance of recovery.

Time is not on their side.

[fsol]

So what you do is average over the smallest interval that makes sense, so you can have your cake and eat it too.

Where does the 30-year number come from?

I hear "30 years is climate" and "less than 30 years is weather"....

but who decides? What is the basis? Anyone have a reference?

Here is an approach to how you decide on a value.

http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/01/results-on-deciding-trends.html

[Geckko]

No, aren't we talking about a 30 year average, like thus (for example):

point 1: average of 1951-1980
point 2: average of 1952-1981
point 3: average of 1953-1982
...
...

Not really. None of those three are very independent.

A proper series of data points in this context would be

point 1 - trend 1951-1980
point 2 - trend 1981-2010

[BenBurch]

Not really. None of those three are very independent.

A proper series of data points in this context would be

point 1 - trend 1951-1980
point 2 - trend 1981-2010

NO.

Sliding windowed running averages are standard for analyzing such things in just about any field.

There is no "trend" 1951-1980. Just an average. One point on that graph. It becomes a trend when you add the window before and the window after. It becomes a useful trend when you add a few dozen of such windows to the graph. An average such as this, of course, is millions of points of data, so any periodic variation smooths out.

[mhaze]

.... What mhaze really really wants to do is look at shorter trend and draw conclusions from it. ....Given that I hold the complete opposite view (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5086549&postcount=1243), could you please do a better job of lying?

Not really. None of those three are very independent.

A proper series of data points in this context would be

point 1 - trend 1951-1980
point 2 - trend 1981-2010Sheesh! I missed that!

what, you don't want to count all the data 30 times?:clap:

[Geckko]

NO.

Sliding windowed running averages are standard for analyzing such things in just about any field.

There is no "trend" 1951-1980. Just an average. One point on that graph. It becomes a trend when you add the window before and the window after. It becomes a useful trend when you add a few dozen of such windows to the graph. An average such as this, of course, is millions of points of data, so any periodic variation smooths out.


I would suggest that nothing is "standard", rather you should just use approriate statistics.

You could indeed use rolling average trends to produce a lot more "data points", but you need to analyse them on the basis that you have greatly reduced degrees of freedom.

In effect, a measured trend from 1952-1981 tells you very little more than a measured trend between 1951-1980.

[mhaze]

I would suggest that nothing is "standard", rather you should just use approriate statistics.

You could indeed use rolling average trends to produce a lot more "data points", but you need to analyse them on the basis that you have greatly reduced degrees of freedom.

In effect, a measured trend from 1952-1981 tells you very little more than a measured trend between 1951-1980.Why bother, when leading climate scientists pick a group of proxy temperature measurements out of hundreds, such that it supports their preconceived notions?

[Wangler]

Here is an approach to how you decide on a value.

http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/01/results-on-deciding-trends.html

Good link, thanks!

[BenBurch]

I would suggest that nothing is "standard", rather you should just use approriate statistics.

You could indeed use rolling average trends to produce a lot more "data points", but you need to analyse them on the basis that you have greatly reduced degrees of freedom.

In effect, a measured trend from 1952-1981 tells you very little more than a measured trend between 1951-1980.

Sorry, just not how science is done. I've done similar work in characterizing huge sensor arrays doing real science. Analysis is all about carefully and intelligently reducing degrees of freedom. Otherwise all you see is noise,

[BenBurch]

Why bother, when leading climate scientists pick a group of proxy temperature measurements out of hundreds, such that it supports their preconceived notions?

Actual proof from primary sources, please?

[mhaze]

.... all you see is noise,Really?

[CapelDodger]

I would suggest that nothing is "standard", rather you should just use approriate statistics.

You could indeed use rolling average trends to produce a lot more "data points", but you need to analyse them on the basis that you have greatly reduced degrees of freedom.

In effect, a measured trend from 1952-1981 tells you very little more than a measured trend between 1951-1980.

What's a "rolling average trend"?

[CapelDodger]

Why bother, when leading climate scientists pick a group of proxy temperature measurements out of hundreds, such that it supports their preconceived notions?

In the real world it might be worth bothering. Depending on what a "rolling average trend" is, of course.

[CapelDodger]

Not really. None of those three are very independent.

A proper series of data points in this context would be

point 1 - trend 1951-1980
point 2 - trend 1981-2010

That's two data points. What do you hope to achieve with two data points? It hardly constitutes a 'series'.

[mhaze]

NO.

Sliding windowed running averages are standard for analyzing such things in just about any field......Including with autocorrelated data and data smoothed already by natural effects?

[BenBurch]

Including with autocorrelated data and data smoothed already by natural effects?

Yes.

[mhaze]

Including with autocorrelated data and data smoothed already by natural effects?

Yes.

Did you intend to sink into that big stinky pile, while carefully teetering on the shoulders of Intellectual Dwarves of Climatology?

[Geckko]

That's two data points. What do you hope to achieve with two data points? It hardly constitutes a 'series'.

Quite.

Such is the statistics of climate change.

[BenBurch]

Quite.

Such is the statistics of climate change.

You appear to be absolutely ignorant of it...

[mhaze]

You appear to be absolutely ignorant of it...Ignorant of the nuances of pseudo science?

Still maintain you roll that average over that autocorrelated data?

How about applying smoothing procedures to ...


ice core data?
Sediment data?
Isotope data?
Tree ring data?

[BenBurch]

Come back when you have a clue what you are talking about, MHaze.

[Geckko]

You appear to be absolutely ignorant of it...

Why are you so quick to jump to the insult?

It is as I pointed out. If you had 60 years of data and wanted to analyse the stability of any trend, e.g. Has the trend increased, stayed the same, decreased, then you would really only have en extremely limited amount of data (after allowing for degrees of freedom) with which to work. You could:


Use independent time frames for comparison to maximise your degrees of freedom. Noting that the length of
Use many more rolling time frames, but with massively reduced dregrees of freedom.


In effect, the statistics of the problem is such that you need a long time series to test for significance of any measured trend. And you need a number of such long term series that are sufficiently independent of one another to allow comparison between periods with sufficient statistical power.

This is alll germaine to the problem at hand and the OP. What does the data over recent decade(s) tell us about the trend complard with that witnessed over longer or elarier periods?

[CapelDodger]

Why are you so quick to jump to the insult?

It is as I pointed out. If you had 60 years of data and wanted to analyse the stability of any trend, e.g. Has the trend increased, stayed the same, decreased, then you would really only have en extremely limited amount of data (after allowing for degrees of freedom) with which to work. You could:


Use independent time frames for comparison to maximise your degrees of freedom. Noting that the length of
Use many more rolling time frames, but with massively reduced dregrees of freedom.
In effect, the statistics of the problem is such that you need a long time series to test for significance of any measured trend. And you need a number of such long term series that are sufficiently independent of one another to allow comparison between periods with sufficient statistical power.

This is alll germaine to the problem at hand and the OP. What does the data over recent decade(s) tell us about the trend complard with that witnessed over longer or elarier periods?

Longer than a decade or than decades? If the latter how many decades?

The last decade tells us very little about a surface temperature trend because there's too much noise in such a short time series. So we have to consider periods of at least decades, and the general view is that three decades is the minimum. That covers several sun-cycles and rather more El Nino/La Nina cycles, and can reasonably expected to have about average vulcanism. A period that includes only one sun-cycle and one El Nino/La Nina cycle can't tell us anything about climate trends. Unless the trend is particularly dramatic, which the AGW trend isn't.

The last few decades demonstrate a warming trend. That's why glaciers are retreating, permafrost is melting, bio-zones are changing and all the other visible evidence of climate change at a rate and on a scale which has never been observed before.

[BenBurch]

Wasn't an insult, it was an observation.

But let us drop numbers for a moment and look at an analog computer.

As CapelDodger points out, glaciers are retreating.

Ice integrates heat over time. It is an analog computer for warming. If late-summer ice extents stabilize and remain fairly constant, there is no warming or cooling. If late-summer ice extent expands, you have cooling. If it decreases...

And if it does so year after year with few pauses, you have yourself a trend.

[macdoc]

Ice shelves, multiyear ice cover, mid latitude glaciers and net mass loss for all glaciers are even more telling - and it's accelerated dramatically in the last 3 decades.

Biota changes, upward and poleward, expanded tropics by 200 km....undeniable warming

Head buried in sand to deny otherwise....:garfield:

it's soooo lame to be a denier these days....:rolleyes:

[DogB]

And if it does so year after year with few pauses, you have yourself a trend.

True, but Glaciers also retreat due to decreased rainfall…

Geckkos’ point (I believe) was that the scarcity of independent data points makes teasing causation from correlation difficult. Real world indicators (IMHO) make the problem worse not better because they add additional effects not seen in the pure temperature records.

This is alll germaine to the problem at hand and the OP. What does the data over recent decade(s) tell us about the trend complard with that witnessed over longer or elarier periods?

All we can say with any degree of confidence is that the warming rate for 1979 to 2009 is somewhat less than for (say) 1969 to 1999. Both periods still show warming though. If the period 1989 to 2019 were to show even more moderation then the significance of this result would rise again.

If you’re asking what precise period of cooling or neutrality would falsify the AGW hypothesis then I don’t have a good answer for you. I suspect if 2019 is no warmer than 2009 then the theory is in some trouble.

[Wangler]

And if it does so year after year with few pauses, you have yourself a trend.

All that's needed then is an unequivocal link between man and the trend, and it's game over.

[DogB]

Pretty much. I for one was wrong.

Damn, I hate that ... :mad:


Don’t been so hard on yourself. Looky… (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/cryosphere_arctic_seaice_map.png)

Apologies for linking from WUWT but they were the only site to catch an image of this momentary glitch.

[BenBurch]

DogB - Rainfall we can accurately measure. Glaciers are retreating even where precipitation has increased.

[mhaze]

DogB - Rainfall we can accurately measure. Glaciers are retreating even where precipitation has increased.Are you claiming because there is a sort of natural running average existant in glacier shrinkage or expansion, we can use them as some sort of measure for the last several decades without the 30 year averaging limitation?

[BenBurch]

Are you claiming because there is a sort of natural running average existant in glacier shrinkage or expansion, we can use them as some sort of measure for the last several decades without the 30 year averaging limitation?

Again, come back when you know enough to explain yourself.

[DogB]

DogB - Rainfall we can accurately measure. Glaciers are retreating even where precipitation has increased.

My point was that natural systems respond to multiple inputs - using them as surrogates for simple one dimensional data points such as temperature is fraught.

But you’re right the glaciers are melting (and have been since about 1850).

[DogB]

Actually to be perfectly correct, the Glaciers have been melting in a slightly noisy manner since the start of the Holocene, and will continue to do so until the interglacial is over.

Consistency in climate is an illusion formed by limitations in human perception.

[Geckko]

Wasn't an insult, it was an observation.

An apology would have been more gracious.

[Geckko]

All we can say with any degree of confidence is that the warming rate for 1979 to 2009 is somewhat less than for (say) 1969 to 1999. Both periods still show warming though. If the period 1989 to 2019 were to show even more moderation then the significance of this result would rise again.

If you’re asking what precise period of cooling or neutrality would falsify the AGW hypothesis then I don’t have a good answer for you. I suspect if 2019 is no warmer than 2009 then the theory is in some trouble.

Mine was a particularly specific statistical point. It pops up here again.

Note that if you want to investigate the possibility that the trend from 1979-2009 is different from that over the period 1969-1999 there is not quite as much data as there fist appears (i.e. you do not have two 30 year trends, when you account for degrees of freedom).

This is because the trend between 1979-2009 is partly a function of the part of the trend between 1969-1999. In fact 2/3 of it.

[macdoc]

My point was that natural systems respond to multiple inputs - using them as surrogates for simple one dimensional data points such as temperature is fraught.

How about you invert that, might cure the the tunnel vision on temperature :rolleyes:....:garfield:

Ice shelves thousands of years old have disappeared in a human lifetime and accelerated loss in the last thirty years....that's NOT "noise"

This is not "noise"
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Meancumulativespecificmassbalanceof.jpg

http://climaticidechronicles.org/2009/01/31/glacial-mass-balance-data-for-2006-and-2007-shows-continuation-of-long-term-melt-trends/

[DogB]

This is because the trend between 1979-2009 is partly a function of the part of the trend between 1969-1999. In fact 2/3 of it.

Of course - but if you accept the premise that anything less than a thirty year trend isn't trustworthy then you are reduced to using such processes.

Smoothing over thirty year period doesn’t leave us with a whole lot of reliable data.

[DogB]

Ice shelves thousands of years old have disappeared in a human lifetime and accelerated loss in the last thirty years....that's NOT "noise"

I’ve decided I’m going to tailor my debate style based on that used against me. So my reply to you follows.



Is too!

[mhaze]

Double is too!

[DogB]

Oh BTW it looks very much like the ice has bottomed out for this year. Doesn't somebody owe some money?

:)

[Geckko]

Of course - but if you accept the premise that anything less than a thirty year trend isn't trustworthy then you are reduced to using such processes.

Smoothing over thirty year period doesn’t leave us with a whole lot of reliable data.

Was I not entirely clear?

That is the point I have been making.

In statistics the "amount" of data you have is only ever relative to the degrees of freedom contained within that data.

The true amount of data (in statistical terms - aadjusted for degrees of freedom) when looking at climatic trends is in fact quite small. Back to where I began.

[a_unique_person]

Oh BTW it looks very much like the ice has bottomed out for this year. Doesn't somebody owe some money?

:)

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/amsre_sea-ice-zoomed-richardson.png

Complete with the patented Watts Zoom. I think he's too early to make that claim, but he could be right. Either way, I don't see the long term average on that graph.

Reminds me of this for some reason.

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/09/arctic-sea-ice-staggering-growth.html

[lomiller]

-The trend from 2000-2009 is shows no statistically significant difference from the 1980-2009 trend
-The 1945-1975 and 1945-2009 trends do show a statistically significant difference from the 1980-2009 trend.
-The 1900-2009 trend is different yet again.

It is possible to identify inflection points where trends change from one value to another, but the last decade isn’t and example of this. Calling a multi-year trend a single data point, however is simply ridiculous.

[DogB]

That is the point I have been making.

And I was agreeing with you. Sorry the tone wasn't clearer.

[DogB]

Calling a multi-year trend a single data point, however is simply ridiculous.

Ridiculous? We've been told that we need thirty years to smooth out the noise in the signal - therefore one thirty year period gives us a single trend quantitation. Doesn't it?

[mhaze]

.... It is possible to identify inflection points where trends change from one value to another, but the last decade isn’t and example of this.... .There are statistical methods to support this approach to looking at the data. One of the five articles I referenced earlier in the thread took this approach. As I recall the conclusion was along the lines of ...

"Yep...gonna git cooler"...

[TrueSceptic]

Oh BTW it looks very much like the ice has bottomed out for this year. Doesn't somebody owe some money?

:)
Yes, it looks like Wangler will be paying $10 to a charity of my choosing.

I think we should wait a few weeks in case there are any corrections, though.

See the "Permafrost" thread, where the bet was made.

[Wangler]

Yes, it looks like Wangler will be paying $10 to a charity of my choosing.

I think we should wait a few weeks in case there are any corrections, though.

See the "Permafrost" thread, where the bet was made.

Should we wait that long?

I am ready to concede at this time.

Thanks for taking the bet with me! Added some intensity to the watching of sea ice.

[macdoc]

Some fodder for the next round

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090924/ice_melt_090924/20090924?hub=SciTech

[Wangler]

Some fodder for the next round

Perhaps the next round could be the year that a new global average temperature maximum is reached, based upon one of the common datasets?


Any other ideas?

[lomiller]

Perhaps the next round shouldn't involve internet amateurs trying to perform their own analysis on the data sets and “proving” respected science organizations are “getting it all wrong”

[Wangler]

Perhaps the next round shouldn't involve internet amateurs trying to perform their own analysis on the data sets and “proving” respected science organizations are “getting it all wrong”

I get this instead of a response to my questions about the use of the HadSSTv2 data?

Why am I not surprised?

:nope:

[macdoc]

How would anyone possibly know what mix of data NOAA reached its conclusions on....?.:boggled:

The range is .oox and is nitpicking to the verge of parody. :eusa_doh:

[TrueSceptic]

Should we wait that long?

I am ready to concede at this time.

Thanks for taking the bet with me! Added some intensity to the watching of sea ice.
OK then. Please give the $10 to the World Wildlife Fund. It's up to you if you want to make it specific but I think the work they do trying to protect whales might be of local interest. :)

Thanks for taking the bet. :D

[lomiller]

Why am I not surprised?

:nope:

I don’t know why it should come as a surprise when you are offered the suggestion your own personal analysis doesn’t hold the weight as one done by NOAA.

[Wangler]

OK then. Please give the $10 to the World Wildlife Fund. It's up to you if you want to make it specific but I think the work they do trying to protect whales might be of local interest. :)

Thanks for taking the bet. :D

I am very happy to be able to make the donation to that organization. It will be done this week.

Thanks for playing, it was fun. :)

[Wangler]

I don’t know why it should come as a surprise when you are offered the suggestion your own personal analysis doesn’t hold the weight as one done by NOAA.

I guess what really comes as a surprise that my "analysis" is an issue, considering it wasn't an "analysis", but rather a "presentation" of the HadSST data.

I am still awaiting a valid scientific reason to ignore that data, or a valid reason my presentation of that data is flawed.

My best guess is that if you had either, it would have been presented by now.

[macdoc]

Reiterating :rolleyes: if you do not know the basis on which NASA made the assessment of record ocean temps then one dataset is simply immaterial especially one that is .00x off its own record levels....

Nitpicking comes to mind....:garfield:

[Wangler]

..then one dataset is simply immaterial especially one that is .00x off its own record levels....

This statement clearly shows you have not even bothered to look at the HadSST data. Strange.

May I suggest a pause in your incessant spamming campaign to actually look at some data?

[BenBurch]

Would it matter what RAW data from one source says if we do not know what analysis and what data sets were considered? Find that out and then you have a basis to discuss the matter further. Back to work here...

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by macdoc
..then one dataset is simply immaterial especially one that is .00x off its own record levels....
This statement clearly shows you have not even bothered to look at the HadSST data. Strange.



I read the data from the SST and the .00x stands - a tiny amount less than the 1998 peak.....from THIS data set and you still don't know what NASA based their assessement.....

Tired of pointing out the obvious to you for your nitpicking sessions.....

Can I suggest a pause in the stupid and utterly redundant numerous times over questions....:rolleyes:
and comments....

Seems you don't like reality......it's warming, we're mostly responsible.

chew on this

Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327273.800-climate-change-may-trigger-earthquakes-and-volcanoes.html......:garfield:

[Wangler]

I read the data from the SST and the .00x stands - a tiny amount less than the 1998 peak.....

I see you don't say where you read it from, and for good reason: it was the wrong place.

Check this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5131825#post5131825), follow the link to the correct HadSST data, and do the math.

Still think the 0.00x stands?

Or do you care to hold to your incorrect position, and morph your FAIL to EPIC FAIL?

[Wangler]

Would it matter what RAW data from one source says if we do not know what analysis and what data sets were considered? Find that out and then you have a basis to discuss the matter further. Back to work here...

Ben, not sure I understand what you are trying to get across here. Please elaborate if you have time.

[macdoc]

denidiots wiggle room getting downright tiny....


Four degrees of warming 'likely'
By David Shukman

In a dramatic acceleration of forecasts for global warming, UK scientists say the global average temperature could rise by 4C (7.2F) as early as 2060.

The Met Office study used projections of fossil fuel use that reflect the trend seen over the last 20 years.

Their computer models also factored in new findings on how carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans and forests.

The finding was presented at an Oxford University conference exploring the implications of a 4C rise.

The results show a "best estimate" of 4C being reached by 2070, with a possibility that it will come as early as 2060.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8279654.stm

[Wangler]

Macdoc must have me on ignore.

No discussion of the HadSST data, and the 0.00x myth.

Just more spamming.

:odie:

[DogB]

Macdoc must have me on ignore.

I think macdoc is a bot. I've noticed it's starting to post the same links to multiple threads now.

[BenBurch]

Ben, not sure I understand what you are trying to get across here. Please elaborate if you have time.

We have no idea how NOAA came up with this conclusion. None of the methods or data sets were elaborated, and indeed could include the data set you named. RAW data is subject to a number of calibrations to account for biasing effects and you don't know what biases they accounted for. Until somebody gets them to say what data was used and how it was processed, you have no basis to discuss this matter further unless you want to accuse them of scientific malfeasance.

Now, I have sent off an enquiry about this matter using my press credentials, I would have preferred to do a phone interview, but work precludes that.

I'll let you know what if anything I find.

[Wangler]

We have no idea how NOAA came up with this conclusion. None of the methods or data sets were elaborated, and indeed could include the data set you named. RAW data is subject to a number of calibrations to account for biasing effects and you don't know what biases they accounted for. Until somebody gets them to say what data was used and how it was processed, you have no basis to discuss this matter further unless you want to accuse them of scientific malfeasance.

Now, I have sent off an enquiry about this matter using my press credentials, I would have preferred to do a phone interview, but work precludes that.

I'll let you know what if anything I find.

Thanks, Ben, for both the explaination, and the inquiry. I know you are busy.

I am certainly not accusing them of scientific malfeasance.

I am rather pointing out a different data set, from a different organization, which shows a different result.

I guess I am just puzzled as to the vigourous defense of the NOAA press release. They said July-August SST was hottest recorded. HadSST says it is not. 'Nuff said.

[BenBurch]

Do you understand what the HadSST number signifies in detail?

[Wangler]

Do you understand what the HadSST number signifies in detail?

As much as I can gather from here (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/rayner_etal_2005.pdf). Section 4b talks about the global averages which I have been referencing, which are available here (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/).

[TrueSceptic]

I am very happy to be able to make the donation to that organization. It will be done this week.

I chose the wrong one, then. You weren't supposed to like it. :eek:


Thanks for playing, it was fun. :)
Seriously, though, yes it was. :)

Strange no one's talking about next year yet...

BTW I have a $100 bet with someone on whether the 1998 anomaly (HADCRUT figures) will be exceeded before 2020. :D

[Wangler]

I chose the wrong one, then. You weren't supposed to like it. :eek:

I may not like their political slants, but they do good work.

I'm not going to throw out the baby with the bath water.;)

[mhaze]

I may not like their political slants, but they do good work.

I'm not going to throw out the baby with the bath water.;)I call detour, derail by arguments into minutae. You had it right.

[DogB]

Strange no one's talking about next year yet...

Did you have something in mind?

BTW I have a $100 bet with someone on whether the 1998 anomaly (HADCRUT figures) will be exceeded before 2020. :D

Interesting. I assume you're not convinced about the whole NOA/PDO phase change thing then?

[macdoc]

A good summary of the ongoing energy gain....for those tunnel visioned on temp....:garfield:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-global-warming-is-still-happening.html

[TrueSceptic]

Did you have something in mind?

Not really but how about the same as this year: 2010 will have a lower minimum than 2005?


Interesting. I assume you're not convinced about the whole NOA/PDO phase change thing then?
I'm just betting that the trend will continue upwards and any downward variations won't be enough to stop 1998 being topped. (Of course according to GISS it was already topped by 2005 but we're using HADCRUT). Here's the bet:-

If a global mean temperature anomaly yearly average of 0.526 °C is not exceeded before 1 Jan 2020 according to HADCRUT, I shall pay $100 (USD) into a charity of your choosing and I shall declare that mainstream climate science as it stood in 2009 was mistaken in grossly exaggerating the role of CO2.

If a global mean temperature anomaly yearly average of 0.526 °C is exceeded before 1 Jan 2020 according to HADCRUT, you will pay $100 (USD) into a charity of my choosing and you will declare that mainstream climate science as it stood in 2009 was broadly correct in assessing the role of CO2.

We have another one for 2030. ;)

[macdoc]

Isn't it too far out to be meaningful in forum terms??:con2:

[TrueSceptic]

Isn't it too far out to be meaningful in forum terms??:con2:
You need to get that hair trigger fixed and read the context. The $100 bet was made elsewhere. :)

[macdoc]

ah...ws just casually following the wager window..:popcorn1 ;)

[Wangler]

...for those tunnel visioned on temp....

Any further comments on your erroneous statements regarding the HadSSTv2 data set?

[macdoc]

Why - you find more nits to pick?? :rolleyes:

- in one thread you try and diminish a massive energy gain to 0.1% and in this you try and magnify the import of a tiny divergence from NOAA's assessment......for a single month.

pretty transparent agenda....:garfield:

[Wangler]

Why - you find more nits to pick?? :rolleyes:

- in one thread you try and diminish a massive energy gain to 0.1% and in this you try and magnify the import of a tiny divergence from NOAA's assessment......for a single month.

pretty transparent agenda....:garfield:

Macdoc, have you looked at the data? Look at the data, please?

And tell we whether or not your 0.00x nitpick statement is accurate?

If you refuse to look at actual data, what am I supposed to think about your "agenda"?

C'mon, please, just look at the data.

P.S., I didn't try and diminish a massive energy gain to 0.1%; the energy gain is what it is.

[DogB]

Not really but how about the same as this year: 2010 will have a lower minimum than 2005?

I'll take that. Donations to charity of choice? You name the sum.

I'm just betting that the trend will continue upwards and any downward variations won't be enough to stop 1998 being topped. (Of course according to GISS it was already topped by 2005 but we're using HADCRUT). Here's the bet:-

We have another one for 2030. ;)

I think you might win that one.