Easily understood graphs

[xsited1]

View attachment 6747

Image:Satellite Temperatures.png - Global Warming Art

Global temperatures have remained relatively stable from 1998 to 2008. They better start going up or Al Gore won't be able to sell anymore books.

 

[Chris]

View attachment 6747

Image:Satellite Temperatures.png - Global Warming Art

Global temperatures have remained relatively stable from 1998 to 2008. They better start going up or Al Gore won't be able to sell anymore books.

Global temperatures probably will go up since we are at the bottom of the solar cycle and the Southern Oscilation, and since we continue to pump 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

 

[Old Rocks]

View attachment 6747

Image:Satellite Temperatures.png - Global Warming Art

Global temperatures have remained relatively stable from 1998 to 2008. They better start going up or Al Gore won't be able to sell anymore books.

Not at all. 1998 was an El Nino year, the strongest of the 20th Century. Eight of ten of the warmest years on record have been in the 21st century. Even 2008, which you people keep touting as cold, ties with 2001 for the eight warmest on record. That is a record of continued increase in the global temperatures.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Temperature Gallery - Global Warming Art

Thank you for posting a set of graphs including one showing that it's believed that it is cooler now than it's been during most of the history of multicellular life on this planet (bottom right).

 

[JohnStOnge]

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

That's all very nice but you can't estimate an average from statistical data without a probability sample and none of the sources of data they reference involve probability samples. They can be very sophisticated in how they use the data but the foundation upon which the sophisticated house is built is flawed. And nobody needs some major scientific organization to tell them that. If you want to ensure an unbiased estimate of a mean with a statistical sample of the population, you need a probability sample of some type. It's a rule.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Temperature Gallery - Global Warming Art

Another thing I think people need to bear in mind when looking at graphs like this is that NASA keeps adjusting the data and it always seems to work out that the adjustments make the data fit in better with the "global warming" hypothesis. I think people should be open to the possibility that there is some bias involved, that there are people (like Hansen, for instance) who are vested in this thing and really believe it. Such people might see the world through that prism so that things consistent with their belief are readily accepted while things inconsistent with it are subject to a lot of scrutiny and even, perhaps, "adjusted."

Here's a view on that:

Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer • The Register

Of course I expect that the source will be attacked but the main thing is to ask yourself whether or not two questions have "yes" answers. Those questions are:

1) Has NASA periodically adjusted temperature data?
2) Have those adjustments consistently made the data more consistent with NASA's climate models?

If the answer to both questions is "yes," you need to ask yourself if the data are being used to check the climate models or are the climate models being used to check the data. The distinction is important.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Scoop: Climate Change Statement: the Royal Society of NZ

A quote from the article at the link:

"The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. "

That looks like an unequivocal statement to me. The IPCC 2007 Physical Science Basis Report states that unequivocal attribution with respect to the causes of climate change (in the sense of change itself...not presumed human-caused change) is not possible. Not that I need the IPCC to tell me that. It's just that having the IPCC admit it in that report is more likely to persuade people who are either unfamiliar with what it takes to infer cause and effect or don't want to deal with that "inconvenient truth" in this case.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Did you know that watching television causes obesity? Here's an easy to understand graph proving that:

 

[editec]

Yeah yeah yeah!...global warming is myth. It's a big conspiracy to confuse you.

And STATE FARM is pulling out of FLA, why?

Because of a myth? Or are they in on the conspiracy, too?

I don't think so.

You can cling to this myth till reality imposes itself on you, if you want, but as for me?

I'll trust the scientists and I'll trust the insurance companies who study the issue statistically, too.

If you do NOT believe that global warming in happening, then my guess is that the price of FLA real estate is going down down down, and this is your chance to put your money where your mouths are.

You'll clean up....if you are right and if all these scientists and actuarial mavens are totally wrong.

So show me you have real FAITH in the global warming skeptics who tell you this is all some giantic conspiracy, folks.

Either buy FLA real estate or better still INSURE FLA real estate for those who have it now.

Go ahead.. show us all how smart you all are and what fools the rest of us are, won't you?

I dare yas!

 

[Red Dawn]

Scoop: Climate Change Statement: the Royal Society of NZ

A quote from the article at the link:

"The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. "

That looks like an unequivocal statement to me. .

I can understand how it would look "unequivocable" to you, if you cut and paste one sentence out of the whole statement.

If you actually read the entire statement in context, its a carefully crafted piece of language that fully recognizes the scope of scientific uncertainties, and the range of probabilities. A careful and accurate statement you would expect from a credible international scientific body.

The Statement

*The globe is warming, because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.*

There has been an overall upward trend in global surface temperature since the beginning of the 20th Century. Most of the observed global warming over the past 50 years is very likely to be due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere by allowing sunlight to reach the Earth's surface but trapping some of the infrared radiation emitted by the Earth. Human activities have increased the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide since the mid-1700s. More than half of the carbon dioxide concentration increase has occurred since 1970.

Human activities have also increased concentrations of aerosols (small "air pollution" particles) in the atmosphere. These may have partially offset the heating effect of the greenhouse gases by scattering some sunlight back to space.

*Natural factors also cause climate variations.*

Climate has always varied, over timescales of decades, centuries and millennia. Until recently these variations have had only natural causes – including changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis, the shape of the Earth's orbit, the energy output from the sun, dust from volcanic emissions, and heat exchanges between the atmosphere and the ocean (such as El Niño). This natural variability still occurs in addition to the human influences. Thus while the overall decade-to-century temperature trend is upwards, individual years can still be warmer or cooler than previous years.

*Further global changes are predicted. Many impacts are expected to be more costly as time progresses.*

Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols were held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend would be expected for at least several decades, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. Additional increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, and resulting changes in climate, will occur over coming decades unless concerted international action is taken to substantially reduce emissions. Impacts will vary regionally but, aggregated and discounted to the present, they are very likely to impose net annual economic costs which will increase over time as global temperatures increase.

 

[JohnStOnge]

I can understand how it would look "unequivocable" to you, if you cut and paste one sentence out of the whole statement.

If you actually read the entire statement in context, its a carefully crafted piece of language that fully recognizes the scope of scientific uncertainties, and the range of probabilities. A careful and accurate statement you would expect from a credible international scientific body.

Yes I did notice that they kind of pulled back. But they started the discussion by making an unequivocal statement. On another matter, think about a statement like this one:

"Most of the observed global warming over the past 50 years is very likely to be due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."

It's nonsensical. Probability is a factor before something happens. At this point, either most of the observed warming is due to increased greenhouse gas emissions or it's not. The probability is either 1 or 0. It is not "very likely." It either is or it isn't.

And that's another problem I have with this whole thing. The IPCC, for instance, defines the term "very likely" to mean that "...the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result... " is ">90%." What hogwash.

This is how probabiliy actually works its way in to assessment of cause and effect: You design an experiment. Say you're going to see if a fertilizer makes certain plants grow taller on average. You randomize the assignment of the treatment. You assume that the treatment will have no effect. When you get the results, you look at the difference between the treatment group and the control group. You assess the probability that you could have gotten a difference in average height at least as large as the one you got IF the treatment had no effect. (One minus that probability) x 100 is the "confidence level." But if you see results "significant" at, say, the 95% confidence level that doesn't mean there's a 95% chance that the treatment had an effect. The treatment either had an effect or it didn't. 100% or 0%. It just means you decide to believe it had an effect because if it didn't it wasn't likely going in that your experiment would've produced the results it did.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK John, keep ranting about statistics. The concern is not arcane sets of numbers, but rather the very real melting of polar caps, and alpine glaciers. Not projected melting, melting already observed. The very real concern is rising sea levels, observed rises that are already impacting aquifers in low lying areas.

The primary factors affecting the temperature of the Earth is the solar irradiance, and retention of the energy from that irradiance. The very small forcing of the Milankovic Cycles have controlled our ice ages for two million years. We understand the forcings, and feedbacks for that effect fairly well. Now, we have had very little increase in the total solar irradiance for the last 150, and none for the last 50 years. But, globally, the temperature is going up. So what else has changed?

When the Milankovic Cycle starts and interglacial period, it does so by a combination of orbitial and axial tilt that allows the Southern Ocean to get a bit more sunlight, and warm a little. This releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than the normal glacial 180 ppm. Over time, it builds to about 280 ppm to 300 ppm. By that time, the cycles are going the other way, and slowly, the temperature begins to decline, the oceans absorb more CO2, and we head for another ice age. In fact, we should be about 6000 years into the decline cycle right now.

However, due to man's removal of the forests in many areas of the world during this period, a small fractions of the CO2 that should have already been out of the atmosphere was not removed. Still, there was the beginning of a slight decline for the last 2000 years. Then came the industrial revolution. Within 150 years, we have increased the CO2 from 280 ppm to nearly 390 ppm.

Even though there is a inertial lag in the system of about 50 years, we are already seeing the effects of the increase in the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. In the melting of the North Polar Cap, and the vast feedback that it represents. The melting of the alpine glaciers threaton agriculture in North America, Europe, and Asia.

Play with statistics all you want. The real science is in the observation of events in real time. Statistics are not needed to observe the affects we are presently seeing.

Something else you said concerning the graphs. Yes, it has been much warmer for much of the past, in the period that multi-cellular life existed. I would remind you that not only was the atmosphere of differant composition for much of that time, there were times when the relitive content of CO2 and CH4 spiked due to trapp volcanism, and created huge extinctions. Now we are introducing GHGs into the atmosphere in amounts and time periods even shorter than the volcanism did. Why should we expect the result to be differant?

 

[JohnStOnge]

OK John, keep ranting about statistics. The concern is not arcane sets of numbers, but rather the very real melting of polar caps, and alpine glaciers. Not projected melting, melting already observed. The very real concern is rising sea levels, observed rises that are already impacting aquifers in low lying areas.

Discipline with regard to statistical inference is very important and it's something that is routinely neglected. People act as though it's just a technicality, but it's not. Information behind the conclusion of the Earth has been in a warming trend for some period includes observation beyond assessment of statistical data. The extent of the cryosphere, for example, can be directly observed through satellites.

However, validation of cause and effect hypotheses in this case depends entirely on statistical data. That's where the big problem arises. The theory behind cause and effect inference is not something that can be dispensed of as "nice but not necessary."

 

[JohnStOnge]

Play with statistics all you want. The real science is in the observation of events in real time. Statistics are not needed to observe the affects we are presently seeing.

"Real science" involves sticking to the rules with respect to statistical inference. It really does.

 

[xsited1]

Old Rocks - Do you have a degree in Science and/or Mathematics? If so, can you provide us details?

 

[Old Rocks]

Play with statistics all you want. The real science is in the observation of events in real time. Statistics are not needed to observe the affects we are presently seeing.

"Real science" involves sticking to the rules with respect to statistical inference. It really does.

From a degreed physicist;

Why Tim Ball is Wrong
(c) 2007 by Barton Paul Levenson




Dr. Timothy Ball is a retired (since 1996) University of Winnipeg professor of geography, though he lists himself as "Emeritus Professor of Climatology." He is also an often-quoted global warming skeptic. One of his most famous lines is that "[T]he global temperature has declined since 1998 while human addition and levels of CO2 continue to rise." Deniers often summarize this quote as "Global warming stopped in 1998!"

Let's examine this assertion.

First of all, 1998 was an exceptionally hot year because it was an El Nino year. The choice of dating from 1998, when we actually have more than 120 years of time series data available, is called "cherry-picking," and is considered a mistake in data analysis. You can't pick out part of the data that seems to support your hypothesis, you have to use all of the data. Dr. Ball must have taken some kind of course in statistics in his years as a scientist; he must know that basing a trend on nine years of data when 120 years are available is a beginner's mistake that would get him a flunking grade in any introductory data analysis class. But let's allow his cherry-picked start date and examine the numbers.

Here are the mean global annual temperature anomalies (in hundredths of a degree) for the years 1998 through 2006, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies:



1998 71
1999 46
2000 41
2001 57
2002 68
2003 67
2004 60
2005 76
2006 65



I entered these columns into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and ran a linear regression of the anomalies on the years. As expected from the small sample size, the regression was statistically insignificant (p = 0.22). But -- here's the kicker -- what trend seems to exist in the data is UP, not DOWN. The regression equation is:

Anom = -3742.577778 + 1.9 Year

I.e., on average, the temperature anomaly increased by 0.019 degrees K. each year in the period discussed. This brings up another point about statistical analysis -- you can't tell a trend from drawing a line from the starting point to the end point. That gives too much weight to "outliers" instead of weighing all the points equally. What you do is what I did -- run a linear regression. And if you do that, Dr. Ball's idea turns out to be wrong. The trend is up. Not in a statistically significant way, though it becomes very significant indeed if you run the regression from, say, 1880 to 2006. But up, not down. So global warming did not stop in 1998, and Dr. Ball, and anyone else who uses the line "Global warming stopped in 1998!" is WRONG.



9/26/2007

 

[del]

Play with statistics all you want. The real science is in the observation of events in real time. Statistics are not needed to observe the affects we are presently seeing.

"Real science" involves sticking to the rules with respect to statistical inference. It really does.

From a degreed physicist;

Why Tim Ball is Wrong
(c) 2007 by Barton Paul Levenson




Dr. Timothy Ball is a retired (since 1996) University of Winnipeg professor of geography, though he lists himself as "Emeritus Professor of Climatology." He is also an often-quoted global warming skeptic. One of his most famous lines is that "[T]he global temperature has declined since 1998 while human addition and levels of CO2 continue to rise." Deniers often summarize this quote as "Global warming stopped in 1998!"

Let's examine this assertion.

First of all, 1998 was an exceptionally hot year because it was an El Nino year. The choice of dating from 1998, when we actually have more than 120 years of time series data available, is called "cherry-picking," and is considered a mistake in data analysis. You can't pick out part of the data that seems to support your hypothesis, you have to use all of the data. Dr. Ball must have taken some kind of course in statistics in his years as a scientist; he must know that basing a trend on nine years of data when 120 years are available is a beginner's mistake that would get him a flunking grade in any introductory data analysis class. But let's allow his cherry-picked start date and examine the numbers.

Here are the mean global annual temperature anomalies (in hundredths of a degree) for the years 1998 through 2006, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies:



1998 71
1999 46
2000 41
2001 57
2002 68
2003 67
2004 60
2005 76
2006 65



I entered these columns into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and ran a linear regression of the anomalies on the years. As expected from the small sample size, the regression was statistically insignificant (p = 0.22). But -- here's the kicker -- what trend seems to exist in the data is UP, not DOWN. The regression equation is:

Anom = -3742.577778 + 1.9 Year

I.e., on average, the temperature anomaly increased by 0.019 degrees K. each year in the period discussed. This brings up another point about statistical analysis -- you can't tell a trend from drawing a line from the starting point to the end point. That gives too much weight to "outliers" instead of weighing all the points equally. What you do is what I did -- run a linear regression. And if you do that, Dr. Ball's idea turns out to be wrong. The trend is up. Not in a statistically significant way, though it becomes very significant indeed if you run the regression from, say, 1880 to 2006. But up, not down. So global warming did not stop in 1998, and Dr. Ball, and anyone else who uses the line "Global warming stopped in 1998!" is WRONG.



9/26/2007

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL! Fail yourself. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics don't melt polar caps and glaciers. They do not prevent them from melting, either. Nor do they prevent CO2 from absorbing infrared at the wavelength that it absorbs it, at the various layers in the atmosphere that it does absorb it. He wanted to disprove the corelation of CO2 and warming using statistics. So why not use modern economic theory to disprove plate tectonics?

 

[Old Rocks]

Old Rocks - Do you have a degree in Science and/or Mathematics? If so, can you provide us details?

No, just a lifelong interest in earth sciences, and about three years worth of classes in geology and related fields. The highest class completed Eng. Geo. 470/570.

 

[xsited1]

Old Rocks - Do you have a degree in Science and/or Mathematics? If so, can you provide us details?

No, just a lifelong interest in earth sciences, and about three years worth of classes in geology and related fields. The highest class completed Eng. Geo. 470/570.

Then you're in luck. I have advanced degrees in Physics, Mathematics and Electrical Engineering. If you ever have any questions about Science or Statistics, just let me know.

JunkScience.com -- Steven Milloy, Publisher