Global Warming backdown

Michael Hardner · June 17, 2010

Even accepting this reconstruction as accurate, the 1700's peak is not far below the early 1950's peak.

Somebody said it would be interesting to see data from one location and so I posted it.

Aren't we supposed to not talk about it now ?

waldo · June 17, 2010

whaaa! The stupid - it burns! As I stated previously, my raw data "eyeball prowess" is no match for yours... care to explain how, by your "eyeballing" this ridiculous cut/paste of data, (now the third station you've done this for), shows, as you state, "little or no real trend". Did you not even look at the link I provided in response to your last mindless raw data cut/paste - where I plotted the data and presented a basic linear trend... again, here. Uhhh... just what trend did your "eyeball prowess" realize?
Good point, sort of. A 1.2C uptrend over 116 years just doesn't scare me too much.

which, not that it was needed, reinforces your unknowing (and uncaring) self... you simply choose to ignore the dramatic results of the most recent decades warming. Don't worry, be happy!

by the way, you didn't answer the question. Again, just what trend did your "eyeball prowess" realize in your latest raw data cut/paste silliness? You clearly stated, "these figures show little or no real trend". What trend did your eyeballing the raw data present for you?

Bonam · June 17, 2010

by the way, you didn't answer the question. Again, just what trend did your "eyeball prowess" realize in your latest raw data cut/paste silliness? You clearly stated, "these figures show little or no real trend". What trend did your eyeballing the raw data present for you?

Just so you know, it's actually not that hard to look at a list of data and visualize what a graph of it would look like. Though of course it does not substitute for a real analysis, in my research, as I take data on an experiment and write it down, I can basically "see" what the graph of the data will look like before I actually plot it up on a computer.

Not saying that jbg is necessarily doing this, but it is definitely possible and within the realm of human abilities to look at that list and "eyeball" something that wouldn't be too far off from the truth.

jbg · June 17, 2010

Somebody said it would be interesting to see data from one location and so I posted it.

Aren't we supposed to not talk about it now ?

I thought it was very interesting, actually. I will not ccept Waldo's spammed directives diktat to not analyze single-station data.

Just so you know, it's actually not that hard to look at a list of data and visualize what a graph of it would look like. Though of course it does not substitute for a real analysis, in my research, as I take data on an experiment and write it down, I can basically "see" what the graph of the data will look like before I actually plot it up on a computer.

Not saying that jbg is necessarily doing this, but it is definitely possible and within the realm of human abilities to look at that list and "eyeball" something that wouldn't be too far off from the truth.

Bonam, basically that's what I'm doing. I am thankful for Waldo's chart of the NJ data, but it basically supports my point; there have not been alarming changes. I do not accept Waldo's accusations that I am uncaring. I care alot about lower to middle class jobs that would migrate to countries with no environmental laws should the U.S. or Canada do something panicky based upon fudged or non-existant data.

waldo · June 17, 2010

Just so you know, it's actually not that hard to look at a list of data and visualize what a graph of it would look like. Though of course it does not substitute for a real analysis, in my research, as I take data on an experiment and write it down, I can basically "see" what the graph of the data will look like before I actually plot it up on a computer.

possibly, depending on your overall expertise, your familiarity with the data and related processing/analysis... and, of course, practical aspects like the number of data points, sampling sizes, etc. Yes, of course, it's no substitute for real analysis.

Not saying that jbg is necessarily doing this, but it is definitely possible and within the realm of human abilities to look at that list and "eyeball" something that wouldn't be too far off from the truth.

of course, he's doing nothing of the kind... he's not once included comment on the results the data might actually hold/present... even after repeated prodding. He's simply presenting raw data - a mindless cut/paste exercise.

bush_cheney2004 · June 17, 2010

...of course, he's doing nothing of the kind... he's not once included comment on the results the data might actually hold/present... even after repeated prodding. He's simply presenting raw data - a mindless cut/paste exercise.

The raw data are important sans processing and manipulation. Fraud can be detected with simple analysis of variance (ANOVA/MANOVA).

jbg · June 17, 2010

of course, he's doing nothing of the kind... he's not once included comment on the results the data might actually hold/present... even after repeated prodding. He's simply presenting raw data - a mindless cut/paste exercise.

The raw data are important sans processing and manipulation. Fraud can be detected with simple analysis of variance (ANOVA/MANOVA).

The data speaks for itself. I assume any person with a reasonable level of intelligence can eyeball start and end year temperature and snowfall data and look at a few arbitrary years in between. It would be evident that little has changed, though Waldo's graphing does make a valid point that there has been some change. Certainly not at a level requiring policy adjustments though.

Edited June 17, 2010 by jbg

Bonam · June 17, 2010

Certainly not at a level requiring policy adjustments though.

Regardless the best policy is continued economic growth which leads to more investment in technology and innovation, which will present us with the needed technical solutions if we want to control the Earth's climate because it becomes deemed non-optimal in the future.

bush_cheney2004 · June 17, 2010

The data speaks for itself. I assume any person with a reasonable level of intelligence can eyeball start and end year temperature and snowfall data and look at a few arbitrary years in between.....

It's even better when someone like Stephen Mcintyre does it.

waldo · June 17, 2010

I thought it was very interesting, actually. I will not ccept Waldo's spammed directives diktat to not analyze single-station data.

eyeball away, jbg... eyeball away! You've already been asked, repeatedly, what your focus on single isolated localized stations might be? In the broader context of larger-scale regional and/or global climate change, just what do you think the value of isolating single stations might be... might prove?

Bonam, basically that's what I'm doing. I am thankful for Waldo's chart of the NJ data, but it basically supports my point; there have not been alarming changes. I do not accept Waldo's accusations that I am uncaring. I care alot about lower to middle class jobs that would migrate to countries with no environmental laws should the U.S. or Canada do something panicky based upon fudged or non-existant data.

supports your point? You haven't a clue... warming on a global scale has brought forward increased temperatures today of ~1.3 °F higher than roughly 150 years ago. That little basic minimalistic linear trend I presented for one of your isolated U.S. stations presented a trend of ~2.5°F warming - and I highlighted it really didn't "prove" anything... that it was simply a localized station result. We've seen the impacts of what today's ~1.3 °F global warming has brought forward... and you have the numbing presence to state, as you say, "there have not been alarming changes".

your new world order, government conspiracy ramblings are emblematic of your overall "caring". Of course, it was only a matter of time before you would trot out your familiar baseless references to, as you say, "fudged or non-existent data". You've been challenged repeatedly to step up, or STFU... present your case for, "fudged or non-existent data"... the impetus to your baseless caring concern over the, "loss/migration of jobs".

Bonam earlier highlighted the key point... that, effectively, no one with any presence questions that warming has occurred... that temperatures continue to increase... that the debate is no longer about warming, that the debate is about the cause of the recognized warming. And yet, we have you (and Simple) taking us back again, challenging the surface temperature records, challenging warming? C'mon, jbg... step up your game - get with the times!

Edited June 17, 2010 by waldo

waldo · June 17, 2010

The data speaks for itself. I assume any person with a reasonable level of intelligence can eyeball start and end year temperature and snowfall data and look at a few arbitrary years in between. It would be evident that little has changed, though Waldo's graphing does make a valid point that there has been some change. Certainly not at a level requiring policy adjustments though.

no - the data does not speak for itself... proper plot/trending analysis of your sampled localized station raw data brought forward representative warming results. Your eyeballing, obviously provided you... nuthin! Of course, in your brazen all-knowing presence, you're now prepared to advise on policy thresholds! Based on a single localized U.S. station - how... U.S. centric of you! The rest of the world is certainly beholding to your pontification.

bush_cheney2004 · June 17, 2010

.... Based on a single localized U.S. station - how... U.S. centric of you! The rest of the world is certainly beholding to your pontification.

NASA and NOAA are...ummmm..."U.S. centric" !!

Pliny · June 17, 2010

I haven't noted any alarming changes. There are some indications of change but let's face it change is always happening.

Waldo these people you are arguing with do not wish to sink to your level of dependency upon scientific peer reviewed literature and not have any thoughts of their own, as is your position. They like to debate and think about things for themselves. They are different then you. They are not beholding to anyone else to know something.

They can determine things for themselves.

So let go of your Mother's apron strings and have a thought all your own. Start with something simple like seeing there is a light in the room. Determine for yourself that it is there, it's real and don't let any peer reviewed literature tell you it couldn't possibly be there or it is a copy of light or anything like that. Just know for yourself it's there. There are lots of other things you can know too.

Bonam · June 17, 2010

Bonam earlier highlighted the key point... that, effectively, no one with any presence no longer questions that warming has occurred...

See that's just the wrong way to talk about things. When you say no one questions something, you imply that no one should question something. Admonishing people not to question something is reminescent of religion, not science. Science is all about questioning things, including long held and widely accepted ideas. Of course, such questioning often comes up with nothing but an eventual reaffirmation of the original idea, but not always. A better statement would be to say something along the lines of "there is no reason to think that warming hasn't occurred" or "the bulk of the evidence points conclusively to warming having occurred". In this way you can frame your posts in a more scientific rather than dogmatic tone, and that would probably help not to antagonize the people you are trying to convince.

Just some free advice, take it or leave it.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Bonam

waldo · June 17, 2010

jbg, overall, to-May2010 results... in keeping with the recent posts focus on land surface temperature, I've highlighted that reference below. Don't worry - be happy!

State of the Climate - Global Analysis - May 2010 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Climatic Data Center)

Global Highlights

* The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the warmest such value on record since 1880.

* For March–May 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 14.4°C (58.0°F) — the warmest March-May on record. This value is 0.73°C (1.31°F) above the 20th century average.

* The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2010 was the warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.68°C (1.22°F) warmer than the 20th century average.

* The worldwide ocean surface temperature for May 2010 was the second warmest May on record, behind 1998, 0.55°C (0.99°F) above the 20th century average of 16.3°C (61.3°F).

* The seasonal (March–May 2010) worldwide ocean surface temperature was the second warmest such period on record, 0.55°C (0.99°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (61.0°F).

*

The global land surface temperatures for May and the March–May period were the warmest on record, at 1.04°C (1.87°F) and 1.22°C (2.20°F) above the 20th century average, respectively.

waldo · June 17, 2010

Bonam earlier highlighted the key point... that, effectively, no one with any presence questions that warming has occurred... that temperatures continue to increase... that the debate is no longer about warming, that the debate is about the cause of the recognized warming. And yet, we have you (and Simple) taking us back again, challenging the surface temperature records, challenging warming? C'mon, jbg... step up your game - get with the times!
See that's just the wrong way to talk about things. When you say no one questions something, you imply that no one should question something. Admonishing people not to question something is reminescent of religion, not science. Science is all about questioning things, including long held and widely accepted ideas. Of course, such questioning often comes up with nothing but an eventual reaffirmation of the original idea, but not always. A better statement would be to say something along the lines of "there is no reason to think that warming hasn't occurred" or "the bulk of the evidence points conclusively to warming having occurred". In this way you can frame your posts in a more scientific rather than dogmatic tone, and that would probably help not to antagonize the people you are trying to convince.
Just some free advice, take it or leave it.

you're niggling - for whatever reason? I've spoken many times of the skeptical nature of science - that science is predicated upon skepticism... questioning and challenging the status-quo. One might ask you what you meant when you stated, "pretty much accepted as a given these days"? One might similarly, if inclined, niggle your statement to suggest your assertion was a very closed-minded assessment, certainly not one that would open that acceptance you speak of, to... questioning! Should I also niggle a, as you say, better statement for you?

just some free advice, take it or leave it.

Anyway I thought it was

pretty much accepted as a given these days

on both sides of the debate that the world's average temperature is increasing and that the focus of the debate was whether this was primarily anthropogenic (as proponents would advocate) or primarily natural (as skeptics would argue). Or has this discussion taken a step back?

waldo · June 17, 2010

I haven't noted any alarming changes. There are some indications of change but let's face it change is always happening.
Waldo these people you are arguing with do not wish to sink to your level of dependency upon scientific peer reviewed literature and not have any thoughts of their own, as is your position. They like to debate and think about things for themselves. They are different then you. They are not beholding to anyone else to know something.

They can determine things for themselves.

So let go of your Mother's apron strings and have a thought all your own. Start with something simple like seeing there is a light in the room. Determine for yourself that it is there, it's real and don't let any peer reviewed literature tell you it couldn't possibly be there or it is a copy of light or anything like that. Just know for yourself it's there. There are lots of other things you can know too.

Pliny, we get it... we know you're very afraid of science - it's been stated now, several times over... we get it!

Bonam · June 17, 2010

just some free advice, take it or leave it.

I see you picked the "leave it" option.

waldo · June 17, 2010

I see you picked the "leave it" option.

as did you - it would appear

Bonam · June 17, 2010

as did you - it would appear

Saying that something is "generally accepted" and saying that something should not be questioned are two very different things.

waldo · June 17, 2010

Saying that something is "generally accepted" and saying that something should not be questioned are two very different things.

which, of course, is not what was stated... perhaps you should read it again - here, let me quote it again for you:

Bonam earlier highlighted the key point... that, effectively,

no one with any presence questions that warming has occurred

... that temperatures continue to increase... that the debate is no longer about warming, that the debate is about the cause of the recognized warming. And yet, we have you (and Simple) taking us back again, challenging the surface temperature records, challenging warming? C'mon, jbg... step up your game - get with the times!

since you wish to belabor the point... saying that, "no one with any presence questions that warming has occurred" and saying that, "no one with any presence should question that warming has occurred", are two very different things.

now that we've firmly established what I actually did say, perhaps you could further offer distinction between your "pretty much accepted as a given these days", and my, "no one with any presence questions that warming has occurred"

Bonam · June 17, 2010

now that we've firmly established what I actually did say, perhaps you could further offer distinction

Perhaps I could, but it's not worth it. I was simply offering you some advice.

waldo · June 17, 2010

Perhaps I could, but it's not worth it. I was simply offering you some advice.

no problem. Since it was advice based upon your niggling of a statement I didn't make... based upon your stating I said, "that something should not be questioned",... which I didn't say - I simply chose not to accept advice, your advice, that didn't have an applicable association to what I did say.

Oleg Bach · June 17, 2010

The earth is a house - a polluted and dirty house will either freeze in winter or burn in summer..it's about those that turn profits not cleaning up after themselves..You would think that those that get rich making the place filthy would at least hire a maid - but - no - they get their poor bothers and sisters to attempt to clean the mess for free.