Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Koch Brothers pay to show global warming is real
Topic Started: Oct 31 2011, 08:01 PM (4,889 Views)
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
telcoman
Nov 14 2011, 07:43 AM
As Brew pointed out, Curry is cherry picking isolated data and not looking at the overall trend, not very good practice.

As for unqualified i am referring to the Daily Mail

Had you done your research & gone to the actual source, BEST itself, you would find this:

Has Global Warming Stopped?

Some people have suggested that there has been no global warming over the past 13 years, and they ask whether our land-only analysis verifies that. The graph shows the results of our analysis with 1-year averaging (to smooth it) for the last 6 decades so you can better see the period in question. The blue curve is the result of our analysis, and the grey lines represent our 95% confidence limits.

Berkeley Earth analysis chart

Posted Image

The large fluctuations up and down that take place every few years correlate very strongly with the North Atlantic temperatures (the AMO index) and with El Nino (ENSO index 3.4). See our paper on "Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures" for analysis of that. The presence of these fluctuations makes any strong extrapolations from short-term behavior uncertain.

Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.

"As Brew pointed out, Curry is cherry picking isolated data and not looking at the overall trend, not very good practice."

As Brew blusteringly claimed you mean. But Curry didn't cherry pick, she simply pointed out that the last decade or so shows no rise in temperatures and Muller agreed. That data doesn't fit the trend. We're back at how do you explain that--oh, yeah, there are other factors than man, CO2, temps as Brew claims. We've circled this fact several times now.


"As for unqualified i am referring to the Daily Mail"

They didn't do anything other than publish information. Stick to the facts and Curry and Muller and the science. Not your standard ad hom.



"Some people have suggested that there has been no global warming over the past 13 years, and they ask whether our land-only analysis verifies that. The graph shows the results of our analysis with 1-year averaging (to smooth it) for the last 6 decades so you can better see the period in question. The blue curve is the result of our analysis, and the grey lines represent our 95% confidence limits.... Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then...."

Yes, we've also discussed that, the question of whether 10 or 12 or 15 or 17 years worth of data is significant. Some say no, some say yes.

You will note that the data has to be massaged by "1-year averaging (to smooth it) for the last 6 decades". In short, as I said long ago, the data is not in question, the difference between what you cite and Curry (and Muller agreeing) is how you look at the data.

And we, you and I, concluded, based on that, once again, that to argue man causes CO2 rise causes temp rise is far too simplistic an explanation when many other factors are involved.


All the nonsense I hadn't provided sources and ad homing publishers amounted to one thing, circling back around to what we already agreed on.
Edited by Chris, Nov 14 2011, 07:58 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis