Ag with kids
5000+ posts
03/20/12 03:39 PM
|
|
Mop, FWIW, I think you're referring to pasotex, not Texoz...
Eric '90
The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.
Post Extras:
|
mop
25+ posts
03/21/12 03:48 AM
|
|
oops! yes, AWK, you are correct! Sorry Texoz, I mean Pasotex.
Post Extras:
|
mop
25+ posts
03/21/12 11:05 PM
|
|
man Paso…you sure are taking a long time to answer the very question you put to AWK. Do you not know how to answer it either? I am waiting for you to show us the statistical analysis that led you to so confidently declare that there has been statistically significant warming in the past 15 years.
Post Extras:
|
Ag with kids
5000+ posts
04/05/12 10:52 AM
|
|
The site is biased, but, the report goes to the argument about whether there has been any statistically significant warming in the past 15 years.
Nope...there hasn't been
Eric '90
The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.
Post Extras:
|
mop
100+ posts
04/05/12 03:47 PM
|
|
Paso sure had a lot of bravado for a guy who can't come back and prove that there HAS been statistically significant warming. I was all ready to hear his argument but I guess he doesn't have one?
Post Extras:
|
mop
100+ posts
04/05/12 03:49 PM
|
|
the polar bear situation has been overstated severely it would seem:
plenty of polar bears still around
Post Extras:
|
pasotex
2500+ posts
04/05/12 10:52 PM
|
|
In reply to:
Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair.
Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.
But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real".
Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.
By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance.
If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20.
Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.
"The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.
"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.
"It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."
Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.
The dataset that Professor Jones helps to compile - HadCRUT3 - is a joint project between the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), where he is based, and the UK Met Office.
It is one of the main global temperature records used by bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
HadCRUT shows a warming 1995-2010 of 0.19C - consistent with the other major records, which all use slightly different ways of analysing the data in order to compensate for issues such as the dearth of measuring stations in polar regions.
The Link
Do we really need to get into the actual data, statistics, and trends? You guys obviously do not understand this stuff so why not just leave it alone?
Hook 'em!
Post Extras:
|
mop
100+ posts
04/06/12 04:16 AM
|
|
so after all of your bluster, you dig up an article that I have already read? I want you to tell us what the trend is from 1997-2012 with the Hadcrut 3 series. Go ahead! Let's "get into this" if you know how. I have already said, I am ignorant of how to determine a trend and so I am asking for your help. No articles, no vague quotes from Phil Jones, just do the analysis and show your work to tell us the trend. Or has all the talk up to now been merely bravado? Do you know how to determine a trend? If you do, is it the fact that the trend is TINY that worries you? I don't know how to do the math, but I feel fairly certain by looking that if there is a statistically significant trend, it is not very large.
Post Extras:
|
mop
100+ posts
04/06/12 04:19 AM
|
|
by the way, my consistent date parameters have been the past 15 years…I have therefore been starting with 1997 (the year AHEAD of the big El Nino that is still the warmest year on record in 2 of 4 global records) and up through the end of 2011. that is 15 calendar years. You linked to an article that started in 1995 and went through 2010….which is fine, but it isn't the past 15 years.
Post Extras:
|
pasotex
2500+ posts
04/06/12 06:35 AM
|
|
What is the trend?
Why don't you look at the other data series and longer time frames? You really think that looking at a shorter time frame thereby keeping the confidence level below 95% on the warming trend means something? You can increase the confidence level to 95% by either removing the noise (which was done in the paper that I linked earlier) or extending the time frame. All five sets of temperature data (both raw and adjusted to remove noise) show a relatively consistent increase of around .18 degree Celsius per decade.
You do realize this right? You do realize that the claim there is "no statistically significant warming" is sophistry and does not mean there is no continuing warming trend. The claim that warming "stopped" or is "flat" is just stupid and is really not worth even discussing because I would rather play with my dog.
Here is kind of an interesting article on what you (or really your blogs) are doing:
The Link
And here is another refuting the whole "it hasn't warmed since 1998" nonsense:
The Link
And here is a peer reviewed paper on it:
The Link
And here is a picture:
I am really growing tired of this thread and the whole anti-science pro-stupidity charade. I guess this is part of the plan because the US has pretty much done nothing to curb greenhouse gas emissions for the last 20 years when the benefits would have been greater and the costs less.
Hook 'em!
Post Extras:
|
Ag with kids
5000+ posts
04/06/12 08:30 AM
|
|
Paso,
Are you simply obtuse or are you being deliberately deceptive. I am not NOR HAVE I discussed the 1995-2010 time period. I'm talking about the past 15 years which in what you have said has SSW.
You keep attempting to use a different time period to prove your case. That's either a mistake on your part or you're being deceptive or you just don't really understand that proof during one time period doesn't show proof in a different time period.
Eric '90
The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.
Post Extras:
|
pasotex
2500+ posts
04/06/12 08:47 AM
|
|
The exact last 15 years with what data set and with or without adjustments to remove noise? And what confidence level?
This is a joke. The warming trend has continued unabated for the last 40 years and it averages right around .18 degree Celsius per decade. I get that with a 15 year or shorter time increment and a certain noisy data set you can sometimes get the warming trend to fall just outside the 95% confidence level (primarily due to the distortion impact of El Nino coupled with an undersampling of the arctic) so you can make the cute claim that there has been "no statistically significant warming". This is sophistry if you know [censored] about science or statistics. It also absolutely does not mean that there is no warming.
The trend is all that matters and if your trend which is warming (not flat or cooling) is just outside the 95% confidence level, you add another year, try to remove noise, or look at other sets of similar data. This is what a real scientist would do. This is exactly what the peer reviewed paper that I linked earlier did.
I do not know whether you did not read my link or did not understand it, but they absolutely showed statistically significant warming over the last fifteen years. It was made easier by their removal of various distortions (ie noise) and combining of five data sets. This is solid really good science (because this is exactly what good scientists do).
You are not interested in this though. I am, at this point, not even sure what you are interested in. You seemed at one point to be somewhat open minded about this and somewhat knowledgeable about the science and statistics. This no longer appears to be the case. You appear to be interested in playing the mop game of willful ignorance.
You guys can continue to be cute because this has devolved into something way too stupid for me to waste my time with.
Hook 'em!
Post Extras:
|
mop
100+ posts
04/06/12 08:50 AM
|
|
I think we have our answer AWK. Paso can't work out the trend at all. He appears to be all talk. No one questions that the trend over the past 200 years has been warming. That is obvious. We were in the Little Ice Age 200 years ago, so of course we have warmed. The question is about the past 15 years because it appears the rate of warming appears (contrary to models' predictions) to have slowed considerably. You were putting all these questions to us as if you could do the calculations, so do them. I want YOU to do them. I don't know how. I have said that. Use the data set that Phil Jones and the climate gate crew love the most. That is the HadCrut 3. It is THEIR data set. Show me the statistical warming from the past 15 years.
By the way, if you went back to 1940 and plotted the trend you would not come up with .18 Celsius per decade. It seems it would be closer to .09 per decade so it all depends on where you start doesn't it?
Regardless, we started this segment of the conversation based upon the past 15 years. You INSISTED it had warmed in the past 15 years and implied that we were ignorant for not understanding. So help us understand. Show us HOW much it has warmed since 1997 and what is the trend from the past 15 years.
Or can you do that?
By the way:
1941 through 2011
Post Extras:
|
mop
100+ posts
04/06/12 08:57 AM
|
|
by the way Paso, if you go back 100 years, it actually gets even worse for you…it is about .08 per decade then. But I know you can choose just the right decades and show a warming of .18 per decade. I get that. so what about the past 15 years of data? what are they showing us?
Post Extras:
|
pasotex
2500+ posts
04/06/12 08:59 AM
|
|
rinse, wash, repeat
The Link
and just to show off a bit - most of the heat increase is not of the air, but the ocean
Hook 'em!
Post Extras:
|
pasotex
2500+ posts
04/06/12 09:10 AM
|
|
And here is the abstract from the peer-reviewed paper that I linked above: In reply to:
Abstract
We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr 1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Nino/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Nino/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.
Hook 'em!
Post Extras:
|
mop
100+ posts
04/06/12 11:07 AM
|
|
so you can't do it can you Paso? I actually thought you had the ability and the know how to work out the analysis of the past 15 years and show us the statistical trend at a 95% confidence level. I guess you are mostly bluster on this.
You were right about one thing though, your response was "wash, rinse, repeat" and really added nothing to the discussion we are having did it?
Post Extras:
|
pasotex
2500+ posts
04/06/12 11:09 AM
|
|
Is approximately .18 C per decade between 1979 and 2010 confusing you? This is at a 95% confidence level. The actual details are in the linked peer-reviewed paper and you can shorten the time frame if you want which they also do in the paper.
Do you need me to teach you statistics? (Don't worry this is a rhetorical question.) You obviously are in way over your head.
This is from the linked peer-reviewed paper:
In reply to:
To look for changes in the warming rates over time, we
computed the rate in adjusted data sets for different time
intervals, for all start years from 1979 to 2005 and ending
with the present. The results (figure 6) show no sign of a
change in the warming rate during the period of common
coverage. It is noteworthy that the noise reduction from
removing the influence of exogenous factors enables warming
to be established using shorter time spans than with raw data.
All five data sets show statistically significant warming even
for the time span from 2000 to the present.
Hook 'em!
Post Extras:
|
mop
100+ posts
04/06/12 12:49 PM
|
|
paso, you are only embarrassing yourself now. both AWK and myself have repeatedly over and over asked you about the 15 year timeframe from 1997-2011, because THAT is the timeframe about which we made our original claim. i don't question that there has been the trend you have mentioned if we go back to 1979, but that is a different conversation. remember, we don't question that the earth has warmed because it HAS! so trying to convince us that the earth is warmer since 1979 is starting a different conversation. so how about it? can YOU do the analysis on the HadCrut3 data from 1997-2011 as we have requested many many times now and show us the statistical trend upwards with a confidence level of 95%? didn't you claim repeatedly when we mentioned the stand still for the past 15 years that we were wrong and that the rise has been statistically significant? so why can't you show us? you keep picking different timeframes and pretending you have answered our question. it looks like you know no more about statistical analysis than me. why are you cutting and pasting and linking to articles that use different timeframes unless you just can't do the analysis yourself?
it's very obvious what is going on here. I called you out on the carpet and you have been found out. here are the two options from what I have seen.
1. you know exactly how to do the analysis, but see that the last 15 years have had no warming or such a ridiculous amount that you don't want to confirm our point
2. you have no idea how to do the analysis, but were using bravado to bluff your way through the conversation.
i haven't pretended to know how to do statistical analysis, have you? 
Post Extras:
|
mop
100+ posts
04/06/12 01:09 PM
|
|
to quote an earlier poster (you):
In reply to:
Can you read?
In reply to:
So what do you think about 15 years of flat temperatures? Is that interesting to you?
This was the statement that I called empirically false. It is empirically false. It is an interesting debate technique where you just ignore data though. The warming trend has continued for the past 15 years and it not only isn't flat but it is statistically significant. I cannot help that you do not understand what this means.
you said that the warming trend has continued for the past 15 years, but then you keep showing us other timeframes than the past 15 years to try and prove that it has warmed. show us the timeframe that YOU yourself said had shown statistically significant warming and we will look at that analysis.
Post Extras:
|
Shop the Co-op |
Email A Friend |
Contact Us
Become a HornFans Sponsor
Pages in this thread: 
Rate thread
Print Thread
