Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Projections of sea level are underestimated


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#46    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,437 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:51 PM

Here's a simple though experiment - what happens to the trend if you choose the equally arbitary start point of 2000 ?
What does this tell you about the argument that the recent trend is flat ?

It tells you that cherry picking your start point can be used to make almost any point in a short duration dataset. This is why we choose a running mean back to the start of the dataset. It avoids such cherry picking.

The difference between you and me Little Fish is that I would never even consider making such a poor argument. Think about your credibility here !

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 06 December 2012 - 09:55 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#47    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:54 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 06 December 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

Little Fish - Doug has done the calculation which proves your statement to be bogus
doug's an obfuscator. I don't have the time.

Quote

there has been no 15year flat period.
Only by including an extreme outlier
only by deleting part of the data are you able to claim there is a rising trend over the last 15 years.

Quote

and selecting one particular dataset can it be said that trend has slowed.
I never said the trend has slowed, I said the trend has been zero. and CRUTEM3 as well as RSS show a flat trend over the last 15 years. if the trend was positive and statistically significant, then all the datasets would show it. I'm just looking at the data, you are denying and ignoring part of the data. you have to deny the trend has been flat for 15 years, because to accept it would mean letting go of your fear mongering predictions.


#48    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,437 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:58 PM

Little Fish please refer to my last post to understand why you are wrong.

If your going to use statistics in your arguments please try to understand some basic statistical principles. Small datasets (as you are using) have very high standard errors (standard deviation) which makes any conclusions drawn from them inversely weaker in proportion to the dataset size.  This is why a statistician will always use the largest dataset available to conduct his analysis.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 06 December 2012 - 10:13 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#49    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:17 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 06 December 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

Here's a simple though experiment - what happens to the trend if you choose the equally arbitary start point of 2000 ?
What does this tell you about the argument that the recent trend is flat ?

It tells you that cherry picking your start point can be used to make almost any point in a short duration dataset. This is why we choose a running mean back to the start of the dataset. It avoids such cherry picking.

The difference between you and me Little Fish is that I would never even consider making such a poor argument. Think about your credibility here !

Br Cornelius
the benchmark to authenticate the gcms computer models is 15 years not 12 years according to the climate modelers and NOAA. if we are to believe the models there should no 15 year flat periods.

here is their statement made in 2008

"Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate"

so there you are, there is now a discrepancy with the models according to the climate modelers.


#50    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:20 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 06 December 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

Little Fish please refer to my last post to understand why you are wrong.
please refer to my last post to understand why you misrepresent and miss the point.


#51    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,437 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:20 PM

Little Fish - there is no 15 year flat period. Starting from a faulty premise derived from cherry picking invalidates your argument before it begins.
Would you concede that if you start or finish the analysis 2 years either side of your arbitrary start and end points the argument collapses.


Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#52    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,437 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:22 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 06 December 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

please refer to my last post to understand why you misrepresent and miss the point.
Your point is meaningless as it is based on an arbitrary statistical analysis derived from cherry picking start and end points. it is not statistically valid to start your running mean at the arbitrary date of 1998.

You have no argument to disagree with.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 06 December 2012 - 10:26 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#53    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,382 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:32 PM

View PostNumber Fingers, on 04 December 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

You say I don't know the difference between weather and climate, but yet these alarmists use every single major weather event anywhere in the world as further 'proof' of climate change.
"Alarmists do.  Scientists don't.  Most weather is just that - weather - and not indicative of climate change.  You have to have a whole bunch of weather events extending over many years before you have evidence of climate change.  "Climate" is measured using averages; it takes mulitple events to calculate an average.

Quote

It's essentially impossible to find a global average as it is.
Correct.  And that's the reason that climate changes are published in the form of global climate anomalies, rather than global average temperatures (Of course, you already knew that.).  Getting the global surface temperature closer than about 0.1 degrees C. is a near-impossibility, anyway, but in case you'd like to do the math, the NCDC list has a formula.  But changes in temperature are much easier because you don't have the problem of figuring out how accurate the observer was back in 1886.

Quote

The margins of error of the weather-instruments themselves are greater than the differences these charts purport to show.
The accuracy of globally-averaged temperature anomalies on a yearly basis is about 0.07 degrees C.  If the change is not at least this big, you can't say there's a difference.  But if you wait a few years, the difference increases; then you can calculate the mean annual increment - even if it's less than 0.07 degrees.

Quote

And that's not even accounting for non-sampling errors, such as the locations of the instruments themselves being altered, for example from shady woodland to open tarmac, or new technology implemented over time.
First, there are standard protocols for the siting of weather instruments.  The station must be in an open area and away from things like tarmac and buildings - I don't remember the exact distance, but it's about 100 feet or so.  Grass is the preferred ground cover - no trees.  Ever try to measure light energy with a tree overhead?

Second, it takes three years of data from BOTH stations to calculate the corrections applicable to the new station.  I have just exactly the problem you describe with my oldest station (Dallas, Arkansas).  It was shut down in December 1905 when the new station (Mena, Arkansas) had been in operation only eight months.  Thus, my oldest six years of data cannot be correlated with anything else and are the next best thing to useless.  When you have the data to do it, you can calculate a set of "dummy variables" that can be used to place the two datasets on the same basis.

Quote

Even NASA admits that all satellite data relating to sea-level rise cannot be taken as precise measurements. Even that data is in question, so is any model that uses it as a base.
The issue is not precision.  It is accuracy.

I think your problem is that you are reading material written by people who don't really know anything about climate and taking that as gospel.  Just because soebody puts it in your local newspaper or on the Intrenet doesn't mean it's true.

Quote

Then Mann tries to use tree rings (3 to be precise) to show absolute precision?
I am not familiar with a paper in which Mann tried to do this.  Would you please post the reference?

On the subject of Mann:  he currently has the dendrochronology community up in arms over a misreading of chronologies he used for a paper in Nature last spring.  Seems he over-estimated the temperatures in northern Scandinavia and then tried to claim that there were no missing rings in the datasets.  That has the original authors ready to string him up.  A rebuttal will be published in a couple months.

Quote

And now the new fad is using stalactites as measurements of historical climate?  What world is this?
I don't know how you define "new," but the technique was used by Doehle back in 2004.  I'd like to cross-date a stalactite chronology with a tree-ring one just to see how they compare.

Quote

Which of course makes the entire process laughable from the very start.  Then they compare these fractions of a degree going back hundreds and even thousands of years as if they have all this data for certain.  Ultimately, they can make the data say anything, because the data itself is such a mess that it can be produced to say anything they need.
I think you have just demonstrated what you know about the process.

Informed criticism helps make the process better.  Unsupported drivel doesn't.  If you think you have found a mistake (It happens.), point it out to the journal and to the author.  If you have something, it will likely get published.  If it doesn't come up to the level of a paper, do a poster at a professional conference, or host a discussion group on the topic.  That's how the divergeance problem was brought out.  One scared graduate student found a missing ring in a standard reference chronology that had been in use for many years.  He took it to the author who confirmed it and published a corrected version with the graduate student as a co-author.  Catching a mistake can enhance your prestige.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#54    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,382 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:45 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 06 December 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

I'll repeat it a fourth time for your understanding - NOAA states that the gcm climate models (used by the ipcc to frighten the gullible) RULE OUT a period of 15 years with a flat trend. I'll say it differently - if there is an observed flat trend for 15 continuous years then the gcm model are exaggerating the effects of co2 - the gcm models do not show flat periods of 15 years in their runs, there has to be a rise over all and any 15 year periods or the models are misunderstanding carbon dioxide. so there is no cherry picking, NOAA stated in 2008 you just have to find a 15 year period of flat trend in the observations to throw out the models. the question is not what you are implying, the question NOAA answered in 2008 is, how many years of non rising temperatures are required to falsify the models' predictions, their answer was 15 years.
The rub is that you have not demonstarted the existence of a fifteen-year period with zero slope.  You lack the data, the model and the method.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#55    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:42 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 06 December 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Your point is meaningless as it is based on an arbitrary statistical analysis derived from cherry picking start and end points. it is not statistically valid to start your running mean at the arbitrary date of 1998.

You have no argument to disagree with.

Br Cornelius
so you are saying that the top climate modelers and NOAA's point is meaningless?

both you and doug are so obsessed with bringing down a little fish, you've lost sight of whose point it actually is.
http://www.unexplain...45#entry4568205
http://www.unexplain...30#entry4568078

Quote

data, the model and the method.
hadcrut3, least squares linear regression trend, 1997-present.
http://www.woodfortr...from:1997/trend

Edited by Little Fish, 07 December 2012 - 01:52 AM.


#56    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,437 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 07 December 2012 - 07:44 AM

Littler Fish your point is invalid because you have abused standard statistical methods to make it. You do not understand the purpose of stats so you do not know how to use them. I repeat "There has been no 15 years flat line in temperature, it is a statistical artifact produced by cherry picking start and end point of a data series"

You really should be ashamed to use such cheap tricks, but I suspect you don't even understand what you have done since you are parroting Anthony Watts and his cronies. Even worse would be if you do understand what you are doing because that would show your dishonesty.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 07 December 2012 - 07:51 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#57    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,437 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:40 AM

This article goes into very clear detail of Little Fishes statistical crimes;

http://tamino.wordpr...smell-so-sweet/

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#58    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,382 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:43 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 06 December 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

doug's an obfuscator. I don't have the time.
I am trying to get you to do some studying about climate change and science and how these findings are done so that you don't come on here and just sound stupid.  I see it is not working.

Quote

only by deleting part of the data are you able to claim there is a rising trend over the last 15 years.
Why did you delete the 1977-1997 data, if not to obscure the fact that temperatures are rising?

Quote

I never said the trend has slowed, I said the trend has been zero. and CRUTEM3 as well as RSS show a flat trend over the last 15 years. if the trend was positive and statistically significant, then all the datasets would show it. I'm just looking at the data, you are denying and ignoring part of the data. you have to deny the trend has been flat for 15 years, because to accept it would mean letting go of your fear mongering predictions.
Statistically, you cannot produce a valid trend line with less than 30 observations without going through a whole lot of complex calculations, which you have not done.  You have posted no evidence of a zero temperature coefficient.  You do not have a case and just saying so again doesn't change the fact.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#59    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:30 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 07 December 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

I am trying to get you to do some studying about climate change and science and how these findings are done so that you don't come on here and just sound stupid.  I see it is not working.
behave.

Quote

Why did you delete the 1977-1997 data, if not to obscure the fact that temperatures are rising?
if I want to calculate the trend for the last 15 years, then I do not need the data from years previous to those 15. all I need is the data for the last 15 years, and I should not throw away any data as a declared "outlier". to throw away the el nino and not throw away the la nina's and el ninos that followed is fraudulent, so we should use all the data over the last 15 years.

I have explained the point to you SIX times now as to why we should look at 15 years of data. here for the 7th time - a flat trend of 15 years falsifies the gcms - that is what the gcm modelers and NOAA stated in 2008 - in order to assert that co2 is a scary life threatening primary climate driving gas that the gcms animate it as, the temperature trend will always show a rise over any 15 year period - their words, not mine.

Quote

Statistically, you cannot produce a valid trend line with less than 30 observations without...<and other nonsense>
the main temperature dataset used by the IPCC, HADCRUT3 and used in the graphs I showed is a monthly dataset, so 15 years of data contain 180 data points. the trend over the last 15 years is flat as I already showed you.

no global warming for fifteen years falsifies the famous fear flooding fanatical fatalists fantastical fantasies.


#60    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,437 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:41 PM

You really just don't understand the concept of stats or trends do you Little Fish. If you want to draw a meaningless conclusion then calculate the trend your way. You ask us not to ignore the El Nino (which we have not be the way) but then  ask us to ignore all the valid data before 1997.

Are you for real. Do you understand how inconsistent your arguments are ?

The great architect must have sent you for comic relief in desperate times ;) .



Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 07 December 2012 - 09:49 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users