-
Archives
-
Recent Posts
- 50 Billion Humans by 2032?
- Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Earth Day 1901
- Earth Day 1928
- NOAA : Cheating For 840 Months In A Row
- Jeff Masters : An American Traditionalist
- Michael Mann – The Human Proxy
- Ice Free Arctic Trajectory
- A Disturbing Trend In Atmospheric CO2
- 1950 Shock News : A Whole New Atmosphere
- Opinion : It Is Difficult To Enjoy Life When You Are Severely Neurotic
- Measure This …. Heidi
- 600% Permanent Drought Returns To The Southwest
- Put The Secret Service In Charge Of The Budget
- Weather Statistics For Mental Midgets
- Global Warming Sunday Sermon
- Time For A New Ice Age Scare?
- Why Hansen’s 1981 Predictions Have Come To The Surface
- Mann “Faces Off” All By Himself
- Congratulations To NOAA And Jeff Masters
- Mann-Made Climate Change In The Himalayas
- Three Days Of Normal Ice
- Site Was Hacked Yesterday
- Earth Day In The Capital Of Greenland
- Earth Day 65 Years Ago : Life Expectancy In Greenland Was 25 Years
Recent Comments
- Ano on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Peter Ellis on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Peter Ellis on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Steven Goddard on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Lazarus on Leftists Increasingly Frightened By Free Speech And Debate
- Lazarus on NOAA : Cheating For 840 Months In A Row
- vksonakia on Exposing The Fake Scientists
- vksonakia on Exposing The Fake Scientists
- Lazarus on NOAA : Cheating For 840 Months In A Row
- Jimbo on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
Partners
well that’s fine then…
or maybe not.
You are looking at the noise, look at the long term trends, which are far more informative.
There are no long term trends to look at.
30 years is only one (1) climate data point. Not even the mann can fabricate a line out of a point, much less a trend.
There IS no data.
30 years is just weather noise. To be climate it must include known variations in weather patterns such as the well known approximate 60 year AO.
God, aka, WMO have in it’s infinite wisdom decided that 30 years is climate.
They cant say why they drew this particular number out of a hat, but that is not for us to ask.
So there.
Why not extend your graph back to the 17th C, when Iceland was surrounded by ice, or for that matter the 11thC when there was less ice than now?
I’m sure you are aware that the late 1970s and early 1980s had an anomalously large amount of ice.
And, “experts’ warned us that we were heading towards a new ice age. Having lived in Chicago from 1976 to 1981, I can tell you that was no picnic.
Not exactly true, at the time the science suggestsed that sulphate aerosols might have a greater effect than rising greenhouse gasses, leading to overall cooling. The majority of scientists thought warming more likely than cooling (as indicated by the scientific publications of that time). The press on the other hand concentrated on the more extreme predictions on the grounds that it would sell more newspapers. The press were no better at covering science issues then than they are now, unfortunately.
That seems to be the accepted revised version of history!
If you disagree, you are free to perform your own survey of the journal publications of the day.
Steve, the presence of an anomalous amount of ice in the 1970′s and 1980s (whether there are reliable records for that or not) is no justification for concentrating on the meaningless noise in the data that in no way condtradicts the long term trend in the satelite datset.
Now if todays ice extent were inconsistent with the long term trend obtained from the satelite measurements, then that would be something worth talking about.
You posted a graph that covers ~33 years, and say that’s a long term trend.
If the first half of that time period shows temps increasing…
and the second half shows temps flat or decreasing
Using your own time period…
In real science, we use tests of statistical significance to determine whether a trend is likely to be meaningful or not. As it happens, the first half of that time period does not shows temps increasing. Average December Arctic sea ice extent has been declining (though not monotonically) for the last 30 years. If you want to show that the rate of decline is not statistically significant, the ball is in your court.
Morons tried that with lotto numbers too…….
No, those that understand statistics tend not to play the lotto. If I want to give money to charity, I’ll give it directly.
By the way, it hadn’t escaped my attention that you didn’t acknowledge that the first half of the data I linked to doesn’t actually show warming, as you asserted, nor did you attempt to defend your assertion.
.climate science obviously does not understand statistics then
What moron would base any science on simply extends trends………
If this current trend continues, we will be in an ice age in 3 years………
Obviously it hasn’t worked out for them……
Not that any climatologist has made such a claim…
I not that you STILL have not acknowledged your error, nor attempeted to defend your assertion. Pretty obvious why.
..I’m sure you’ll sleep better tonight
I really don’t care….nor does anyone else
…It’s over
No one can prove normal….
Its O.K., I realised very quickly that you were not actually interested in the science, I just wanted to see how obvious you were willing to make it. It is no wonder that the climate skeptics aren’t making much progress with the science.
I really don’t care….nor does anyone else
It’s over………………
Carbon markets have closed….Canada, Japan, India, Russia, China, and the US have bailed…global warming is not even showing up on any polls as a concern at all…
..and we’re all sick and tired of internet trolls with nothing better to do
What better definition of troll could you want than someone who openly admits that they don’t care, and yet attempt to disrupt a discussion of the science between those who do?
I do care about the science. I think it is interesting.
well of course you do……
The science of guessing and extending trend lines…
…and yet, you can’t help replying to each post
“In real science,………”
In real science we use like things to compare to like things. You posted a December ice extent graph. We all know 2007 was the lowest level of ice extent.
But, then, if you actually understood statistics, you’d know this is a misapplication statistics. This says nothing towards shifts in the AO, PDO or AMO, so your trend analysis is meaningless.
2007 had the minimum sea ice extent, however that generally happens in September rather than December, but I’d be happy to discuss the September trends if you like.
Note I haven’t said anything about what causes the trend, I don’t think I have mentioned anthropogenic causes. All I am pointing out is that the wiggle in the data for the past week or so that is pointed out in the article is just weather noise and tells you nothing about how sea ice extent is evolving on a more meaningful timescale.
If you disagree, then by all means explain why, I’d be interested to hear.
By the way, it hadn’t escaped my attention that you didn’t acknowledge that the first half of the data I linked to doesn’t actually show warming, as you asserted, nor did you attempt to defend your assertion.
=============================
because I’m waiting to see if your brain will catch up or not…..obviously not
You posted a graph on Arctic Ice Extent…..
…I was talking about temperatures
In which case, the claim isn’t true either, see for yourself
You only get a flat trend in the last part of the period if your carefully cherry pick the start point. If you actually look at the two halves, you find that it is actually the other way round. Those who understand statistical significance however would know better than to make something of it as neither result is statistically significant (unlike the 30 year trend which is).
Sorry, the link whould be http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/to:1995/trend/plot/uah/from:1995/trend
..and that’s why no one in paying attention any more
it’s off the radar….it’s over
Back to trolling already? Shame, whether you like it or not, you can only get a flat trend by cherry picking the start point, miss the cherry by a year or two (as you did) and your assertion is incorrect.
oh jeez…I’m talking to a mental midget
You didn’t get that I was obviously talking about temps when you posted ice extent…
…and now you don’t get that it’s the cherry picking, hysterical predictions, and pretending to be able to predict the future
that’s done it in….
…it’s over
Have fun….now I’m over
@ Dikran and the UAH Graph
Isn’t the first 16 years of UAH warming trend in your graph reduced by Mount Pinatubo cooling from roughly 1991 through 1994?
@Sundance, yes that will have had an effect, just as the 1998 El-Nino will have an effect on the trends as well. The 1998 El-Nino is the thing that allows someone to cherry pick a start point that gives a flat(ish) 15 year trend.
My main point is that it is a good idea to ignore trends that are not statistically significant, and to remember that a trend that is not statistically significant doesn’t mean that the trend is flat, just that there is insifficient evidence to rule out the possiblity that the trend is flat. The latter is a bit inconvenient, but is a reults of the statistical framework normally used in science for hypothesis testing (for a statistically insignificant result to be “interesting” you need to show that the test has sufficient statistical power for it to be confident that the null hypothesis will be rejected if it actually is false, which requires more data that 15 years in this case).
@Dikran
Thank you for the heads up on the 1998 El Nino. I’ll be sure to remember to watch for cherry pickers when people start fretting about warmer temperatures during the next super El Nino.
Yes, do. Cherry picking is cherry picking is cherry picking. If someone wants to draw your attention to a trend (i) ask if it is statistically significant and (ii) check that it isn’t sensitive to changes in the start and end year. IIRC some did get a bit excited about the 1998 El-Nino; they now know better.
Steven, if you check the Arctic ROOS SIE graph you’ll see that this post needs an update.
@ Dikran,…. please explain this….. “…..which requires more data that 15 years in this case.”
It’s my understanding that the CO2 molecules don’t wait or pause in their absorption and re-emission of energy. In other words, the effects of atmospheric CO2 are immediate. The arbitrary time scale attached is simply a delaying tactic.
If you wish to discuss statistical significance, then we should say the inverse applies. Because we are lacking a statistically significant trend, we have invalidated the CAGW premise. I submit 15 years is ample time to determine if our GHG emissions significantly impact our global temperature. The answer is that they don’t.
Here’s a linear trend including 1998, and here is one without (in the following comment) http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/trend
All of this against a backdrop of ever increasing atmospheric CO2. Indeed, globally even the rate of CO2 emissions have increased. In fact, the 35ppm increase represents nearly 1/3 of the increases from the baseline of the 280ppm our alarmist friends have determined as what our CO2 should be.
According to Real Climate, the IPCC uses an average of 55 models.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/
Not a single one of these models predicted the last 15 years correctly. We are familiar with the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Would anyone like to have a go at explaining why 55 wrongs make a right? Or will climatologists get over their hubris and realize that their models need a lot more work before they can be relied upon for policymaking?
A lack of statistical significance does not imply no warming. If you compute a linear trend over the whole UAH lower trophosphere data you get a significant trend. If you compute the trends for the first and last half of the dataset individually then neither would be statistically significant. So if statistically insignificant meant that there was no trend you would have a job explaining why there was significant warming overall, but no warming in either half!
If a result is statistically insignificant it means one of two things, either the null hypothesis is true, or that it is wrong, but there isn’t enough data to rule out the possibility that it is true. Without also computing the statistical power of the test, you have no way of knowing which.
This is why climatologists look at 30year time periods (which are long enough to expect to confidently reject the null hypothesis when it is false) and those who don’t understand statistical hypothesis tests look at shorter timescalse and cheery pick the start point to minimise the trend.
Lmao! UAH is it now? What about RSS?
Here is the hypothesis. Atmospheric CO2 significantly controls our global temps. Given the nature of CO2 and the nature of earth’s emissivity, the effects of atmospheric CO2 are immediate. Again, after nearly a 1/3 increase of CO2, nothing has happened. Nothing.
Obviously, the null hypothesis is that CO2 does not significantly control our global temps. The null hypothesis is confirmed.
But, we don’t need present day experience to confirm this….. here is a 36 year period of increasing CO2 and decreasing temps… http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1877/to:1913/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1877/to:1913/trend
Dikran! You are the man! Thanks, bro!
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/30-years-is-needed-to-confirm-the-null-hypothesis/
Don’t worry!!! I gave you credit too!!
I definitely agree that paying so much attention to minor short term blips is meaningless for looking at the global climate. The only one that matters is the Vostok or Greenland record.
That said, it is difficult not to keep an eye on these minor blips because we KNOW that the AGW promoters make any blip that fits their beliefs into international doomsday news. And, unless someone has been living in a cave for the past two decades, there is absolutely no denying that. Doesn’t even need to be a short term trend. For some missionary-propagandists, one storm will do.
In any case, there’s the data which we will NOT hear about in the usual media because it does not fit their story. Not that what the usual media says matters anymore.
And one day later it is lower than it was in 2009;
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
Whose cherry pick is best, yours or mine?
Actually, the Arctic ROOS SIE trend line never was highest since 2006, because the graph gets updated every day. Steven posted the preliminary cherry pick. After the update the cherry was gone. But no update, so very Steven Goddard. The crowd here seems to lap it up though.
Lie to me
Cut the crap. I posted the most recent image at the time. Your accusations are scurrilous.
lol, Steve you sure are bringing out the hand-wavers lately.
The image was preliminary and turned out to be incorrect. Why don’t you update it? Too busy writing cynic 10-word posts?
I post that graph regularly, and have no interest in rewriting the past. The new graph is within 1% of the old graph. Do you obsess much?
Steve, you also like to use DMI graphs. How about a short post on the extent graph?
Well, I’ve seen some mindless c**p from you Goddard, but this probably ranks as one of the most facile posts on the internet. And I’m including the output from twitter in that. So you can appreciate that when I say facile, I mean the truly mindless end of facile.
Keep up the good work.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.