Global Warming backdown

[jbg]

This is why it's hard to take alarmists seriously.

"Carbon dioxide will be the leading cause of conflict in next 20 years."

Barbara Boxer is one reason that the Republicans might accomplish the impossible; a victory in a Federal elction in California. Fiorina might just win.

[jbg]

is there a translation for your crafted wording? If you're attempting to highlight the failings in cherry-picked trending... a purposeful manipulation of start/end points... well done; obviously, ensuring proper trending intervals don't attempt to leverage impact events is a fundamental requirement in realizing legitimate trending result. Was that what you're attempting to say?

Basically yes. The Global Warming acolytes do this with abandon in allowing favorable Kyoto base years other than 1990; in some cases as early as 1984 or 1986, so that countries who can be bribed into supporting the treaty get their peak economic years to work with.

nonsense... unless you're unprincipled and wish to deny the myriad of recognized temperature reconstructions. Is that your game/aim?

Somehow, you conveniently forgot about the Medieval Optimum and the Maunder Minimum.

[Michael Hardner]

TrueMetis, I think I remember Jones saying that the data was just short of showing significant warming. If he said that, then that would mean that he did have enough points, but the threshold for determining significance would be different at that number of points.

[Guest TrueMetis]

TrueMetis, I think I remember Jones saying that the data was just short of showing significant warming. If he said that, then that would mean that he did have enough points, but the threshold for determining significance would be different at that number of points.

I think this is what your refering to.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

There aren't enough data point to show that it wasn't random variation, though it does show warming. In a few more years we will be able to say whether the warming from 1995 is statistically significant. Statistically significant doesn't mean that something matters, it just means there is enough data to show that it wasn't random.

My link

[Michael Hardner]

There aren't enough data point to show that it wasn't random variation, though it does show warming. In a few more years we will be able to say whether the warming from 1995 is statistically significant. Statistically significant doesn't mean that something matters, it just means there is enough data to show that it wasn't random.

My link

Statistical significance isn't about the amount of data. If the data showed more warming, then he would have been able to say that there significant warming - but it didn't show that. If there are fewer points, the threshold is ... let's say steeper.

But it's not accurate to say there's not enough data to say whether there is warming or not, there appears to be enough data.

It sounds like things could be flattening out, but they're flattening out at a high point, and they don't appear to be cooling either - if they're just short of significant warming.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Statistical significance isn't about the amount of data. If the data showed more warming, then he would have been able to say that there significant warming - but it didn't show that. If there are fewer points, the threshold is ... let's say steeper.

But it's not accurate to say there's not enough data to say whether there is warming or not, there appears to be enough data.

It sounds like things could be flattening out, but they're flattening out at a high point, and they don't appear to be cooling either - if they're just short of significant warming.

Your off on you definition of statistically significant, it doesn't matter how much it is warming it matters whether they have enough data to show that the warming between 1995 to now is more than just random variation. They don't because it is to short a time period, while if you take from 1975-2009 it is statistically signifcant even though it's a warming of only 0.161 per decade.

From the wiki.

In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance. The phrase test of significance was coined by Ronald Fisher.[1]

As used in statistics, significant does not mean important or meaningful, as it does in everyday speech. For example, a study that included tens of thousands of participants might be able to say with great confidence that people of one state were more intelligent than people of another state by 1/20 of an IQ point. This result would be statistically significant, but the difference is small enough to be utterly unimportant. Many researchers urge that tests of significance should always be accompanied by effect-size statistics, which approximate the size and thus the practical importance of the difference.

link

Edited June 13, 2010 by TrueMetis

[waldo]

Barbara Boxer is one reason that the Republicans might accomplish the impossible; a victory in a Federal elction in California. Fiorina might just win.

whatever 'other' aspects Boxer brings to the table for Californian's to evaluate... that video and the related ad response from Fiorina, doesn't stand up against the support base Boxer has for legitimate, formalized U.S. concerns over climate change related, strategic assessment/positioning/management. Or do you choose to dismiss the expressed climate change related statements/concerns emanating from the U.S. Defense Department, the CIA, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, etc.?

[waldo]

They're both importrant, but both driven by the inclusion or exclusion of Pinatubo (cooling event during late 1990 or early 1991) or the super El Niño (warming event 1997-8).

is there a translation for your crafted wording? If you're attempting to highlight the failings in cherry-picked trending... a purposeful manipulation of start/end points... well done; obviously, ensuring proper trending intervals don't attempt to leverage impact events is a fundamental requirement in realizing legitimate trending result. Was that what you're attempting to say?

Basically yes. The Global Warming acolytes do this with abandon in allowing favorable Kyoto base years other than 1990; in some cases as early as 1984 or 1986, so that countries who can be bribed into supporting the treaty get their peak economic years to work with.

the discussion context was temperature trending... specifically, the tendencies of deniers to purposely cherry-pick short-term trending intervals keyed to specific start/end points... of course, this is countered by adherence to proper trending methodologies which rely on legitimate interval periods; intervals that, within a climate change context, typically extend beyond 20-25+ years. We've had innumerable MLW posts that have beat on this, many times over. You can certainly choose to extend your response beyond what was the temperature trending context, to now bring forward an 'out-of-the-blue' reference to Kyoto base years... at least you're not choosing to proliferate the standard denier talking point concerning the choice of 1990 as the base year - we covered that off previously in another MLW thread - here. As for your specific slag, it's baseless, as the handful of countries that were excepted to the 1990 base year within the Kyoto Protocol, were done so based on their economies being 'in transition' (the so-called "EIT" countries)... the one's I'm aware of, the only countries granted exception to the 1990 base year, that I'm aware of, were Bulgaria (1988), Hungary (1985-8), Poland (1988) and Romania (1989). Wow! You reached deep to support your blustering over, as you say, "Global Warming acolytes". Yeesh!

But the 1000 year measurements don't show warming.

nonsense... unless you're unprincipled and wish to deny the myriad of recognized temperature reconstructions. Is that your game/aim?

Somehow, you conveniently forgot about the Medieval Optimum and the Maunder Minimum.

buddy, you can continue your favoured game of 'buzzword bingo'... or you can get off the pot and actually state what you mean - and substantiate it. Your choice. Step up and substantiate your claim that, as you say, "the 1000 year measurements don't show warming"... why, you can even bring forward reference to, as you say, "the Medieval Optimum and the Maunder Minimum". We've certainly had no shortage of MLW discussion concerning temperature reconstructions... references offered to PNAS, to the National Academies reports, numerous scientific papers, etc. But don't let that hold you back from actually attempting to make/state your case - hey?

[waldo]

They don't because it is to short a time period, while if you take from 1975-2009 it is statistically significant even though it's a warming of only 0.161 per decade.

just so it's not lost in the purposeful intellectually dishonest Shady practices:

- a lack of statistical significance relates singularly, and only, to the CRU temperature record. All the other global temperature records show statistical significance for the same short-term trending interval. But don't let that stop the intellectually dishonest from continuing to beak off about CRU data statistical significance... even though they haven't a clue about trending, about statistical significance.

- the interval was purposefully cherry-picked to exploit a short-term trending interval, to exploit the particular nature of CRU data... records that lack input from the arctic... from the regions showing the most prominent warming. Of course, historically, CRU data was always the favoured data for skeptics/deniers since it always showed the least warming of any of the temperature records (given the absence of arctic region input).

- the actual statistical significance was 93%... for the lacking 2%, the denialsphere went nuts, and it percolated into the mainstream with fabricated tabloid headlines that blared, "no warming since 1995"... while choosing to ignore the actual positive temperature trending rise of 0.12°C per decade. Mission accomplished! Of course, the intellectually dishonest run with it... continue to run with it, while conveniently ignoring other global temperature records (GISTEMP, NCDC, UAH, RSS, JAM, etc.)

once more... with feeling...in regards the purposely cherry-picked 15-year short-term interval... and only as applies to CRU data, yes, Jones did advise that the traditional 95% confidence level wasn't realized. If I recall correctly, it came in at a 93% level.

Of course, full statistical significance is realized with the CRU data if one takes anything greater than a 15-year interval... it's why the denier twats purposely fed the question to the BBC correspondent targeted to start from 1995. As the CRU data was/is in the public domain, the question was a blatant attempt to "catch" Jones not confirming the correct statistical relevance... to his credit, of course, Jones remained accurate and suffered the full weight of the denialsphere for it.

Of course, the record 2010 temperatures throw that whole statistical significance canard out now, as moving that purposeful 15-year cherry picked interval (1995-2009) ahead to now include 2010 (1996-2010) brings forward the full 95% statistical significance for the CRU data... but don't let that get in the way of the intellectually dishonest miscreants who continue to revel in the Jones quote.

to be precise... there is an actual warming trend within the CRU data for the purposely short-term trending 15 year interval period chosen... a positive temperature trend of 0.12°C per decade. And, as stated previously, the CRU temperature record has always been the one to show the least warming of all the various temperature records... for the simple fact it does not include arctic region coverage (the area that has received the most significant warming across the earth). Notwithstanding, of course, legitimate climate change trending intervals are recognized as periods greater than 20+ years.

[Michael Hardner]

Your off on you definition of statistically significant, it doesn't matter how much it is warming it matters whether they have enough data to show that the warming between 1995 to now is more than just random variation. They don't because it is to short a time period, while if you take from 1975-2009 it is statistically signifcant even though it's a warming of only 0.161 per decade.

True Metis - you're incorrect here.

I myself have done many tests for statistical significance. Let me explain it for you with an analogy.

Let's say you wanted to test whether a coin was 'cheated' so that it would show more heads than tails when flipped. You could test your theory by flipping the coin 10 times.

If it came up heads 10 times, you could be reasonably certain at what is called a 'confidence level' that the coin was tricked out. However, if it came up heads 7 or 8 times, you would be less certain that the coin was cheated, that the results came up randomly.

However, if you flipped that coin a thousand times, the threshold for significance is less steep (the terminology I'm using from above).

So if Dr. Jones has 15 data points, he has to have a steeper graph to show warming than if he has 20.

Do you see what I mean ?

Again, none of this impacts the theory for Global Warming in any major way. Even if things dropped over a 15 year period, you would still have temperatures peaking in recent times. Global Warming is real.

[Shady]

True Metis - you're incorrect here.

I have to agree. Michael is right.

[jbg]

But it's not accurate to say there's not enough data to say whether there is warming or not, there appears to be enough data.

Including this data (link)?

Monthly Mean Temperature

Station: Newark Int'l Airport

COOP ID: 286026

Updated 5/2010

YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANNUAL

1931 31.7 33.4 40.5 50.1 59.7 69.7 76.5 73.5 71.0 58.7 50.1 39.0 54.5

1932 42.0 35.2 36.6 48.2 60.9 69.4 74.7 74.4 67.1 56.5 41.7 36.8 53.6

1933 38.8 32.8 37.8 49.7 63.0 71.3 73.8 73.2 68.0 54.1 40.5 31.0 52.8

1934 33.5 18.6 36.6 49.5 62.7 72.5 76.4 70.2 67.9 52.5 47.6 32.5 51.7

1935 27.8 30.1 42.9 49.5 59.0 69.2 76.3 73.0 63.6 55.3 48.3 29.3 52.0

1936 27.7 24.4 44.4 47.4 63.5 69.1 74.8a 74.2 66.7 55.7 41.3 37.9 52.3

1937 39.0 34.1 36.0 49.5 63.2 70.8 75.4 75.8 64.0 53.5 44.6 34.1 53.3

1938 31.0 35.0 43.5 53.2 59.7 69.5 75.5 76.6 63.8 57.3 46.3 35.7 53.9

1939 31.4 36.3 39.1 47.8 64.0 72.2 74.8 76.5 66.9 55.4 42.0 35.1 53.5

1940 23.7 32.2 34.3 45.8 59.9 68.5 74.3 70.1 64.1 51.8 43.7 37.1 50.4

1941 29.0 30.3 35.4 56.2 63.1 70.7 75.0 71.9 67.9 58.8 47.4 36.7 53.5

1942 29.1 29.4 42.5 53.1 64.8 70.5 75.7 72.6 66.7 56.8 45.0 30.0 53.0

1943 29.8 32.3 38.8 45.9 61.9 75.4 75.8 74.5 65.7 53.6 43.2 31.2 52.3

1944 32.5 32.0 36.7 48.2 65.6 71.4 77.8 76.1 68.2 54.5 44.3 30.7 53.2

1945 24.0 32.9 50.6 55.2 58.9 70.7 74.1 72.4 69.6 54.3 45.9 29.1 53.1

1946 32.4 31.0 48.8 50.2 61.5 69.4 74.9 70.7 69.2 60.0 49.2 36.9 54.5

1947 36.5 28.2 37.6 50.3 59.9 67.8 75.5 75.5 67.6 61.0 43.1 32.9 53.0

1948 24.5 29.3 41.9 50.3 60.0 69.4 76.7 74.7 68.4 55.0 50.8 35.9 53.1

1949 37.6 38.2 42.5 53.2 62.4 73.7 79.5 76.3 65.0 61.6 44.2 38.3 56.0

1950 40.3 31.4 36.2 48.4 58.6 70.5 75.2 72.8 64.1 58.4 47.0 33.5 53.0

1951 35.4 35.5 41.7 52.6 62.7 69.5 76.1 74.1 67.1 57.8 42.0 37.2 54.3

1952 35.7 35.7 39.9 53.9 60.1 73.4 79.2 74.1 68.2 53.2 46.5 37.1 54.7

1953 36.5 37.5 42.8 51.4 62.8 72.6 77.1 74.8 69.0 58.7 47.3 39.1 55.8

1954 29.7 39.5 41.3 53.1 59.6 71.1 76.1 72.3 66.8 60.4 44.8 35.2 54.2

1955 30.7 34.2 41.4 53.3 64.6 68.9 80.5 77.7 67.0 58.7 43.5 29.3 54.1

1956 32.0 36.0 36.9 47.8 58.9 71.9 73.1 73.7 64.0 57.1 46.1 39.9 53.1

1957 28.0 36.4 42.0 53.3 62.9 73.8 77.3 73.0 69.5 55.6 48.3 39.0 54.9

1958 31.6 27.8 40.4 53.0 59.2 67.5 76.7 74.9 67.4 54.9 47.4 29.1 52.5

1959 31.4 31.6 40.3 53.5 65.7 71.6 76.7 77.6 71.5 59.9 45.5 38.0 55.3

1960 34.4 36.3 33.9 54.8 62.2 72.3 74.9 75.1 67.9 57.3 48.5 30.0 54.0

1961 26.6 35.8 41.2 48.6 59.7 71.9 77.3 75.8 74.5 59.4 47.4 33.8 54.3

1962 30.8 30.3 42.0 52.5 64.2 72.4 73.8 72.8 64.7 57.3 43.4 31.0 52.9

1963 29.6 27.6 42.5 52.6 61.0 71.9 77.0 73.9 64.0 61.2 49.7 29.2 53.3

1964 34.3 31.9 42.6 49.1 65.4 71.1 76.0 73.9 68.9 55.9 49.3 35.9 54.5

1965 28.3 32.4 39.0 50.0 67.3 71.6 75.6 74.5 68.4 54.0 44.4 38.8 53.7

1966 30.4 33.2 41.6 48.1 59.2 73.8 79.6 76.4 66.6 55.5 48.9 36.5 54.2

1967 36.9 29.4 37.6 50.9 54.3 72.0 74.2 73.4 66.6 56.4 42.2 38.3 52.7

1968 27.7 29.9 43.0 53.9 59.6 69.7 78.1 76.9 70.7 59.7 45.7 32.4 53.9

1969 31.3 31.3 38.8 54.6 64.1 72.8 74.2 77.3 67.5 56.1 45.5 33.1 53.9

1970 24.2 32.9 39.0 51.9 64.6 70.9 77.2 77.2 70.6 59.4 49.0 35.3 54.4

1971 27.3 35.1 41.1 51.4 60.5 74.8 77.7 76.0 71.8 63.1 46.2 41.3 55.5

1972 35.4 31.3 40.4 50.0 63.0 68.8 77.9 75.9 69.8 53.3 44.8 39.6 54.2

1973 35.5 33.3 48.6 54.1 60.4 74.6 78.6 79.6 71.0 60.3 48.8 39.4 57.0

1974 35.4 31.9 43.3 56.5 62.7 70.1 77.1 76.4 66.5 53.8 47.5 38.9 55.0

1975 36.9 35.0 39.7 47.3 65.8 71.6 76.9 75.0 64.3 59.1 51.7 35.3 54.9

1976 26.8 39.3 44.0 55.2 61.1 73.6 74.9 74.4 66.5 52.6 39.9 29.1 53.1

1977 20.9 32.8 46.7 53.7 65.4 70.3 78.1 75.1 68.0 54.5 47.1 33.3 53.8

1978 27.1 25.5 38.5 51.0 60.5 71.6 75.0 76.6 66.1 57.5 48.7 38.0 53.0

1979 32.5 23.5 46.2 52.0 64.5 69.3 77.0 76.6 69.1 56.5 51.7 40.1 54.9

1980 33.9 30.8 38.9 52.6 65.9 70.2 78.8 78.5 70.8 54.9 42.8 30.3 54.0

1981 24.0 37.6 40.1 55.3 64.0 74.6 79.2 75.1 67.1 53.1 46.0 34.6 54.2

1982 24.1 36.1 41.8 50.6 63.2 67.9 78.3 72.5 66.7 56.9 48.8 42.8 54.1

1983 34.9 35.8 44.7 52.2 60.8 73.5 79.6 77.6 70.6 57.8 47.8 34.2 55.8

1984 27.8 40.7 36.5 52.7 62.2 75.0 76.5 77.3 65.4 62.2 45.3 40.8 55.2

1985 24.9 33.5 44.5 57.0 67.1 69.3 76.2 75.5 70.2 58.5 49.5 33.3 55.0

1986 33.0 31.1 44.1 53.4 66.6 72.7 76.9 74.2 68.5 58.0 44.9 38.1 55.1

1987 31.5 32.9 45.0 53.9 63.9 74.4 79.4 75.3 68.7 53.7 47.6 38.4 55.4

1988 28.6 34.4 43.9 51.0 63.3 73.0 80.4 79.7 68.0 52.6 48.9 35.5 55.0

1989 37.0 34.2 42.4 52.5 63.2 74.3 77.2 76.2 69.9 59.1 45.0 25.6 54.7

1990 40.4 39.8 44.9 53.3 61.1 73.4 77.8 76.5 68.6 62.4 50.0 42.2 57.5

1991 33.6 38.6 44.4 54.8 68.9 74.1 77.9 77.7 67.9 58.3 47.6 38.8 56.9

1992 35.1 36.0 39.2 50.2 61.6 72.6 76.8 75.1 69.6 55.7 47.8 38.8 54.9

1993 37.6 31.0 40.1 54.3 67.0 75.8 82.5 79.2 69.1 56.4 47.7 37.2 56.5

1994 25.4 30.3 41.6 57.4 63.7 77.8 81.9 75.7 69.7 58.7 52.0 41.4 56.3

1995 37.5 30.8 45.5 52.6 62.7 73.0 79.5 78.5 68.6 61.0 42.9 31.7 55.3

1996 29.6 33.6 38.7 53.1 61.6 72.9 73.7a 74.0 68.0 55.5 41.9 40.0a 53.5

1997 31.0a 39.3 41.8 50.8 59.2 70.9 76.8 73.6 66.9 56.5 43.6 37.6 54.0

1998 40.1 40.7 45.2 53.9 64.9 70.1 77.6 77.0 70.4a 57.6 47.5 40.3b 57.1

1999 33.4 37.8 42.9 53.3 63.2 74.2 80.8 76.2 69.3 55.5 50.1 39.4 56.3

2000 31.8b 37.4 47.8 51.4 64.2 72.4 73.7 73.3 66.4 57.0 45.2 30.7 54.3

2001 32.2 35.7 40.0 53.2a 64.0 73.9 74.1 79.0 67.4 57.8 51.9 43.5 56.1

2002 39.4 40.3 44.1 56.0 60.9 72.4 80.0 77.9 70.5 55.5 45.4 35.1 56.4

2003 27.5 29.4 43.1 49.8 58.9 69.3 77.3 77.6 68.6 55.0 49.7 36.6 53.6

2004 24.2 34.7 43.7 54.0 66.3 72.2 75.0 74.5 69.6 55.6 47.5 36.5 54.5

2005 30.0 35.6 38.5 54.4 59.1 74.6 78.3 80.4 73.5 57.8 48.7 33.8 55.4

2006 39.6 35.2 43.2 55.7 63.8 72.6 79.4 77.3 66.6 55.8 51.3 43.0 56.9

2007 37.0 27.9 42.0 50.1 65.1 72.7 75.9 75.3 70.1 63.5 44.9 36.5 55.1

2008 35.7 35.7 42.9 54.7 60.5 75.3 78.7 74.1 69.5 55.3 45.4 37.4 55.4

2009 27.9 36.6 42.1 54.4 63.3 68.9 74.3 77.2 66.9 55.6 50.8 35.6 54.5

2010 32.4 33.2 48.2 57.9P

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANNUAL

Mean 31.8 33.3 41.5 52.0 62.5 71.8 76.9 75.3 68.0 56.9 46.5 35.8 54.4

Median 31.6 33.3 41.8 52.6 62.7 71.9 76.8 75.3 68.0 56.5 47.0 36.5 54.2

Note: Preliminary values not used to calculate monthly means and medians

Data Flags:

-999 = Missing Data.

a = 1, b = 2, c = 3, ..., or z = 26 or more missing days in a month or missing months in a year.

P = Preliminary Data.

Or perhaps this data? (link)?

Monthly Snowfall

Station: Newark Int'l Airport

COOP ID: 286026

Updated 5/2010

SNOW SEASON JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN SEASON

1930-1931 -999z -999z -999z -999z -999z -999z -999z 4.1 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 -999g

1931-1932 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 4.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3

1932-1933 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.6 9.4 4.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 22.7

1933-1934 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 10.5 0.1 26.4 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.1

1934-1935 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 6.2 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 18.8

1935-1936 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 -999z -999z 10.5d 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7b

1936-1937 0.0a 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 3.0 2.1 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0

1937-1938 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.3 5.2 0.0 0.0 11.1

1938-1939 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.7 10.9 2.9 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5

1939-1940 0.0 0.0 0.0 -999z 0.0 2.1 3.5 10.3 4.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 21.6a

1940-1941 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5a 3.6 11.6 6.2 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.4

1941-1942 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.7 0.6 3.1 3.5 0.0 0.0 13.9

1942-1943 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 10.7 4.1 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.6

1943-1944 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 10.5 4.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 23.2

1944-1945 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 15.3 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.6

1945-1946 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 16.5 3.5 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.3

1946-1947 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 5.6 20.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.1

1947-1948 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.1 15.7 3.3 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.1

1948-1949 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 6.1 8.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.2

1949-1950 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.5 0.5 7.2 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 10.7

1950-1951 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 5.1 0.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9

1951-1952 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 3.7 2.1 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7

1952-1953 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 8.2 3.7 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3

1953-1954 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 10.6 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 14.0

1954-1955 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 7.1 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7

1955-1956 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.8 2.4 2.4 26.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 40.2

1956-1957 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 7.8 8.8 2.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 24.1

1957-1958 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 6.3 16.3 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.3

1958-1959 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 2.2 1.0 8.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 17.8

1959-1960 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 9.1 3.6 5.2 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.3

1960-1961 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 22.2 23.3 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.5

1961-1962 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 13.2 1.0 13.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.6

1962-1963 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 7.8 7.5 3.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.7

1963-1964 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 13.5 15.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.2

1964-1965 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 16.1 1.8 4.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 27.1

1965-1966 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8

1966-1967 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 1.3 25.4 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.3

1967-1968 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.9 4.6 0.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9

1968-1969 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.7 1.1 16.5 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6

1969-1970 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 9.1 5.5 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.4

1970-1971 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 13.2 1.1 4.2 2.2 0.0 0.0 23.6

1971-1972 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.1 12.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8

1972-1973 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9

1973-1974 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 6.8 8.1 3.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 20.4

1974-1975 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.4 12.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4

1975-1976 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 7.2 6.1 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.9

1976-1977 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 10.8 5.8 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0

1977-1978 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.2 27.4 25.3 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.9

1978-1979 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 9.4 26.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.1

1979-1980 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 2.5 1.8 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3

1980-1981 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.1 6.9 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5

1981-1982 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 12.3 0.5 0.8 13.8 0.0 0.0 30.8

1982-1983 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.3 21.5 0.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 31.0

1983-1984 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.4 13.7 0.3 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.9

1984-1985 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 8.9 7.4 0.1 0.0 0.0a 0.0 23.2

1985-1986 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.6 2.8 13.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 22.0

1986-1987 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 21.4 6.5 2.4a 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.6

1987-1988 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.3 15.4 2.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0a 22.8

1988-1989 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.1 0.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5

1989-1990 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.5 2.4 2.8 2.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 14.5

1990-1991 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 8.5 5.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5

1991-1992 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9

1992-1993 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 10.7 16.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.8

1993-1994 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 18.5 33.4 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.5

1994-1995 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3

1995-1996 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 12.8 31.6 18.4 11.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 78.4

1996-1997 -999z -999z -999z -999z 0.0 0.0 3.4 4.4 7.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 16.3d

1997-1998 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 2.2 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9

1998-1999 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 4.1 2.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8

1999-2000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 5.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 18.4

2000-2001 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 6.1a 11.1 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.3

2001-2002 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6

2002-2003 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 10.2 4.7 29.9 3.3 4.4 0.0 0.0a 53.1

2003-2004 0.0a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 16.9 0.4 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.8

2004-2005 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 15.4 18.6 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.4

2005-2006 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 2.9a 21.5 1.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 37.9

2006-2007 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 5.5 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.5

2007-2008 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.9 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6

2008-2009 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 8.9 2.9 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.1

2009-2010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 1.7 32.9 0.0 0.0P 47.9P

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN SEASON

Mean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 5.3 7.3 8.6 4.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 27.2

Median 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 5.6 6.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.2

Note: Preliminary values not used to calculate monthly means and medians

Data Flags:

-999 = Missing Data.

a = 1, b = 2, c = 3, ..., or z = 26 or more missing days in a month or missing months in a year.

P = Preliminary Data.

Seems awfully trendless to me.

[Guest TrueMetis]

True Metis - you're incorrect here...

Do you see what I mean ?

No not at all but I really don't feel like trying to figure it out right now.

[waldo]

Seems awfully trendless to me.

seems awfully clueless to me

oh my! It's been a while since we've had anyone display their "eyeball trending" prowess... Simple presumed to eyeball trends based on Environment Canada raw data several months back - that was a hoot! At least it provided the opportunity to school Simple on trending - granted... it had to be repeated many times over, and it's still not clear whether Simple actually gets it. You appear to have stepped it up a notch by isolating one particular lonely isolated station... and... you threw snowfall in for bonus points!

oh... wait... I get it! Ya, ya... the Newark Intl' Airport station. Why not just say you're a fan of the nutters, Watts & D'Aleo.

[jbg]

seems awfully clueless to me

oh my! It's been a while since we've had anyone display their "eyeball trending" prowess... Simple presumed to eyeball trends based on Environment Canada raw data several months back - that was a hoot! At least it provided the opportunity to school Simple on trending - granted... it had to be repeated many times over, and it's still not clear whether Simple actually gets it. You appear to have stepped it up a notch by isolating one particular lonely isolated station... and... you threw snowfall in for bonus points!

Can you show me similar month to month data for a similar span from other stations showing a different trend? Or are you going to show me the Mapeleafs', oops, Mann's "hockey stick"?

oh... wait... I get it! Ya, ya... the Newark Intl' Airport station. Why not just say you're a fan of the nutters, Watts & D'Aleo.

I absolutely am a reader and admirer of D'Aleo. In fact I own an autographed copy of his recent book the Oryx Resource Guide to El Niño and La Niña" and I've read it. He's hardly a nutter.

[waldo]

Can you show me similar month to month data for a similar span from other stations showing a different trend? Or are you going to show me the Mapeleafs', oops, Mann's "hockey stick"?

trend? Was that what you showed by your ridiculous cut/paste of raw data? I'm sorry... my eyeball trending prowess certainly doesn't match yours! You're absolutely clueless.

I absolutely am a reader and admirer of D'Aleo. In fact I own an autographed copy of his recent book the Oryx Resource Guide to El Niño and La Niña" and I've read it. He's hardly a nutter.

no... he truly is a nutter... and been shown as such over his involvements with Watts and the absolutely debunked SPPI nonsense.

[waldo]

**bump**

They're both importrant, but both driven by the inclusion or exclusion of Pinatubo (cooling event during late 1990 or early 1991) or the super El Niño (warming event 1997-8).

is there a translation for your crafted wording? If you're attempting to highlight the failings in cherry-picked trending... a purposeful manipulation of start/end points... well done; obviously, ensuring proper trending intervals don't attempt to leverage impact events is a fundamental requirement in realizing legitimate trending result. Was that what you're attempting to say?

Basically yes. The Global Warming acolytes do this with abandon in allowing favorable Kyoto base years other than 1990; in some cases as early as 1984 or 1986, so that countries who can be bribed into supporting the treaty get their peak economic years to work with.

the discussion context was temperature trending... specifically, the tendencies of deniers to purposely cherry-pick short-term trending intervals keyed to specific start/end points... of course, this is countered by adherence to proper trending methodologies which rely on legitimate interval periods; intervals that, within a climate change context, typically extend beyond 20-25+ years. We've had innumerable MLW posts that have beat on this, many times over. You can certainly choose to extend your response beyond what was the temperature trending context, to now bring forward an 'out-of-the-blue' reference to Kyoto base years... at least you're not choosing to proliferate the standard denier talking point concerning the choice of 1990 as the base year - we covered that off previously in another MLW thread - here. As for your specific slag, it's baseless, as the handful of countries that were excepted to the 1990 base year within the Kyoto Protocol, were done so based on their economies being 'in transition' (the so-called "EIT" countries)... the one's I'm aware of, the only countries granted exception to the 1990 base year, that I'm aware of, were Bulgaria (1988), Hungary (1985-8), Poland (1988) and Romania (1989). Wow! You reached deep to support your blustering over, as you say, "Global Warming acolytes". Yeesh!

But the 1000 year measurements don't show warming.

nonsense... unless you're unprincipled and wish to deny the myriad of recognized temperature reconstructions. Is that your game/aim?

Somehow, you conveniently forgot about the Medieval Optimum and the Maunder Minimum.

buddy, you can continue your favoured game of 'buzzword bingo'... or you can get off the pot and actually state what you mean - and substantiate it. Your choice. Step up and substantiate your claim that, as you say, "the 1000 year measurements don't show warming"... why, you can even bring forward reference to, as you say, "the Medieval Optimum and the Maunder Minimum". We've certainly had no shortage of MLW discussion concerning temperature reconstructions... references offered to PNAS, to the National Academies reports, numerous scientific papers, etc. But don't let that hold you back from actually attempting to make/state your case - hey?

[Michael Hardner]

deleted

Edited June 14, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[jbg]

**bump**

Other quoted material:

the discussion context was temperature trending... specifically, the tendencies of deniers to purposely cherry-pick short-term trending intervals keyed to specific start/end points... of course, this is countered by adherence to proper trending methodologies which rely on legitimate interval periods; intervals that, within a climate change context, typically extend beyond 20-25+ years. We've had innumerable MLW posts that have beat on this, many times over.

Actually, what I did was to use all of the monthlies from Newark International Airport, which presumably dates back to the construction of the airport. Other figures from the same website are from other localities and in a post immediately following this one will post date back to before the turn of the last century to show like trends. What is interesting, and something I didn't know before, were the number of "snowless winters" similar to 1972-3 and 2001-2 during such periods as the 1910's.

**bump**

Other quoted material:

You can certainly choose to extend your response beyond what was the temperature trending context, to now bring forward an 'out-of-the-blue' reference to Kyoto base years... at least you're not choosing to proliferate the standard denier talking point concerning the choice of 1990 as the base year - we covered that off previously in another MLW thread - here. As for your specific slag, it's baseless, as the handful of countries that were excepted to the 1990 base year within the Kyoto Protocol, were done so based on their economies being 'in transition' (the so-called "EIT" countries)... the one's I'm aware of, the only countries granted exception to the 1990 base year, that I'm aware of, were Bulgaria (1988), Hungary (1985-8), Poland (1988) and Romania (1989). Wow! You reached deep to support your blustering over, as you say, "Global Warming acolytes". Yeesh!

My point in mentioning the EIT Countries was that Kyoto barely made the minimum number of ratifying countries for it to come into effect. Chretien obtained Canada's ratification, and I believe that at the last minute Russia joined, but clearly they were scratching for ratifying countries. Slovenia was the country that got to use 1986 as a Kyoto base year (edited from earlier incorrect reference to Ukraine). Edited June 14, 2010 by jbg

[jbg]

Deleted and reposted as cleaned up.

Edited July 6, 2010 by jbg

[waldo]

I trust this set of temperature data, for New Brunswick, New Jersey, going back to 1893 (link), extends beyond "20-25+ years"

full stop! ... suggest you step back and save yourself further embarrassment! However you might presume to "eyeball" a temperature trend from raw temperature data (from a single isolated station)... however you might presume to attach significance to a single station in the context of large scale regional or global temperature recordings... however you might presume to link your "eyeballed" temperature trend of the raw data of a single isolated station to large scale regional or global temperature trends... however, you might presume to do any of that, you're now trying to relate the date aspect of raw data availability (since 1893) to the timing intervals that seek to realize pattern trends within the available raw data temperature... however far back it goes, however much raw data is available.

you absolutely are clueless! You clearly follow all the MLW climate change related threads. This is not a new discussion point - this isn't something that hasn't been beat upon, endless times before within several MLW threads. Yet, you persist!

as your two previous brain-fart cut/paste exercises chose to highlight 2 lonely isolated U.S. stations, based on NOAA's management, let's zero in on the USHCN data set and extend that to a processing that includes data from that USHCN data (i.e. the NASA GISS GISTEMP processed temperature record)... as I said, step back and save yourself further embarrassment by reading from the following links. For your edification, GISTEMP has been absolutely transparent in all their procedures/processing... everything is in public domain... everything can be found right down to the most complex underlying computer programs that process the respective data. The following GISS link (or as found within other parts of the GISS website) can lead you to everything/anything concerning the processing of the GISTEMP temperature record... the record processing that presents temperature trends that will include all the data from your ridiculous cut/paste exercise of the 2 lonely isolated U.S. stations you chose to fixate on. Of course, I could have chosen other processed global temperature records; however, aside from the readily displayed transparency surrounding GISTEMP, I particularly like Hansen's attachments to the historical aspects of it, given your past MLW history in presuming to challenge Hansen's early (now decades old) projections. I thought you would really appreciate my selection of GISTEMP.

double bonus: I've highlighted this previously and it appears at least a couple of times in other MLW threads... the following NOAA link will also make reference to a recent study, the Menne et al (2010) study throws a monkey-wrench into your favoured Watts/D'Aleo's specious attempts to discredit the U.S. surface temperature record. Notwithstanding the assortment of other initiatives that have absolutely debunked the baseless ramblings of Watts/D'Aleo concerning UHI, so-called surface station dropout, etc.

- The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (National Climatic Data Center)

- NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) Surface Temperature Analysis

[jbg]

double bonus: I've highlighted this previously and it appears at least a couple of times in other MLW threads... the following NOAA link will also make reference to a recent study, the Menne et al (2010) study throws a monkey-wrench into your favoured Watts/D'Aleo's specious attempts to discredit the U.S. surface temperature record. Notwithstanding the assortment of other initiatives that have absolutely debunked the baseless ramblings of Watts/D'Aleo concerning UHI, so-called surface station dropout, etc.

- The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (National Climatic Data Center)

- NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) Surface Temperature Analysis

I have serious problems with "overall" data of this kind not matched by "isolated" station observations. They should move in sync.

[waldo]

I have serious problems with "overall" data of this kind not matched by "isolated" station observations. They should move in sync.

we could have some real fun here... but it will require you to divulge just exactly how you're able to "eyeball" trends by simply... looking... at the raw data of your two posted... lonely isolated stations. Of course, you still seem lost in the wilderness, presuming to pick upon localized temperature, and present that as an equivalency to long-term, large scale regional and/or global temperature trending. Notwithstanding how you're presuming to gauge, measure, evaluate and compare/contrast the, as you say, "movement"... the synchronization (or lack thereof) of... localized raw station temperature data in relation to long-term large scale regional and/or global temperature trending! Perhaps you could also advise how you've made your synchronization (or lack thereof) assessment?

the smart money had you simply backing away from this thread for a while... apparently, you're (very) slow on the up-take... go figure!

[jbg]

we could have some real fun here... but it will require you to divulge just exactly how you're able to "eyeball" trends by simply... looking... at the raw data of your two posted... lonely isolated stations. Of course, you still seem lost in the wilderness, presuming to pick upon localized temperature, and present that as an equivalency to long-term, large scale regional and/or global temperature trending. Notwithstanding how you're presuming to gauge, measure, evaluate and compare/contrast the, as you say, "movement"... the synchronization (or lack thereof) of... localized raw station temperature data in relation to long-term large scale regional and/or global temperature trending! Perhaps you could also advise how you've made your synchronization (or lack thereof) assessment?

My point is obvious; the real-life raw data should move in sync with Mann's "hockey stick" chart at least to some extent. I challenge you to find some stations that match his data, other than the sanitized and smoothed East Anglia data.

the smart money had you simply backing away from this thread for a while... apparently, you're (very) slow on the up-take... go figure!

I may get sick of responding to your spam at some point. I'll decide, not you.

[waldo]

we could have some real fun here... but it will require you to divulge just exactly how you're able to "eyeball" trends by simply... looking... at the raw data of your two posted... lonely isolated stations. Of course, you still seem lost in the wilderness, presuming to pick upon localized temperature, and present that as an equivalency to long-term, large scale regional and/or global temperature trending. Notwithstanding how you're presuming to gauge, measure, evaluate and compare/contrast the, as you say, "movement"... the synchronization (or lack thereof) of... localized raw station temperature data in relation to long-term large scale regional and/or global temperature trending! Perhaps you could also advise how you've made your synchronization (or lack thereof) assessment?

My point is obvious; the real-life raw data should move in sync with Mann's "hockey stick" chart at least to some extent. I challenge you to find some stations that match his data, other than the sanitized and smoothed East Anglia data.

it just keeps getting better! Only the hopelessly naive presume the "hockey stick" has any real significance into today's debate over climate change... we've moved well beyond any reliance on attributing today's observed significant AGW climate change to the "hockey stick". Notwithstanding, of course, you again are mixing disparate entities... you would now presume to align/match/compare 1000 year reconstructions with latter day surface temperature records/trending. Your pomposity is only matched by your ignorance.

since you're at it again, let me ask once more... when you talk about "raw data moving", when you stooopidly post a cut/paste of station raw data, just how are you presuming to evaluate the "moving of that raw data"... uhhhh... other than through your eyeball prowess? As I said, "you still seem lost in the wilderness, presuming to pick upon localized temperature, and present that as an equivalency to long-term, large scale regional and/or global temperature trending. Notwithstanding how you're presuming to gauge, measure, evaluate and compare/contrast the, as you say, "movement"... the synchronization (or lack thereof) of... localized raw station temperature data in relation to long-term large scale regional and/or global temperature trending! Perhaps you could also advise how you've made your synchronization (or lack thereof) assessment?"

obviously, it's a real stretch to have you take time to actually peruse those NOAA & NASA links I offered... you know, allow you to educate yourself and save further/additional embarrassment.

can't let this one go... your reference to "sanitized and smoothed" East Anglia data Care to clarify? Care to distinguish between the adjustments made to respective global temperature records, be it CRU ("East Anglia"), NCDC, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS, etc.? The point being you've latched on to some denier talking point that presumes to slag CRU data... while not recognizing (understanding) that adjustments are a common practice within processing of temperature records... a common practice that's well documented, well studied. But don't let that stop you from presuming to parrot some specious denier claim against CRU data.

the smart money had you simply backing away from this thread for a while... apparently, you're (very) slow on the up-take... go figure!

I may get sick of responding to your spam at some point. I'll decide, not you.

spare me... the ignore option is your friend!