104 replies to this topic

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 09 December 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

"an observed absence of warming of this duration <15 years> is needed to create a discrepancy" - these are the words of the top climate modelers and NOAA. stop being a King Cnut and accept it.

The data doesn't support an absence of warming unless you cherry pick the data. What will happen to your 15 year prediction next year when 1997 drops out of the picture and the trend suddenly becomes positive again. Spot the logical fallacy of your position.

This is not an issue if you do the maths properly.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 09 December 2012 - 06:56 PM.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 09 December 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

The data doesn't support an absence of warming unless you cherry pick the data. What will happen to your 15 year prediction next year when 1997 drops out of the picture and the trend suddenly becomes positive again. Spot the logical fallacy of your position.

This is not an issue if you do the maths properly.

Br Cornelius

it doesn't "drop out of the picture", it becomes 16 years, and if the trend rises because of the inclusion of the next 12 months of data, there is still a 15 year period of no global warming .

"an observed absence of warming of this duration <15 years or more> is needed to create a discrepancy"

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 09 December 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

it doesn't "drop out of the picture", it becomes 16 years, and if the trend rises because of the inclusion of the next 12 months of data, there is still a 15 year period of no global warming .

"an observed absence of warming of this duration <15 years or more> is needed to create a discrepancy"

So Little fish why do you insist on exluding the data before 1997 ?

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 09 December 2012 - 07:04 PM.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 09 December 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

So Little fish why do you insist on exluding the data before 1997 ?

Br Cornelius

you are saying that in order to identify a yellow car, one must ignore yellow cars and only look at red cars. <rolls eyes>

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 09 December 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

you are saying that in order to identify a yellow car, one must ignore yellow cars and only look at red cars. <rolls eyes>

No I am saying there is a right and a wrong way to calculate a trend - and you chose the wrong one by been insistent on excluding any data before 1997.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 09 December 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

No I am saying there is a right and a wrong way to calculate a trend - and you chose the wrong one by been insistent on excluding any data before 1997.

i'm just looking for a flat trend of length 15 years or more, because the top climate modelers are on the record saying such a thing will prove a discrepancy in their models. why do you disagree with the experts?

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 09 December 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

i'm just looking for a flat trend of length 15 years or more, because the top climate modelers are on the record saying such a thing will prove a discrepancy in their models. why do you disagree with the experts?

Because there has been no 15 year absence of warming unless you calculate the trend incorrectly by duplicitous statistical methods. Do you think the very same people who made that statement would agree with your misuse of stats ?

Lets see what your trying to do here;



Compared to the real trend;





Br Cornelius

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 09 December 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

but what does it show from the period I specified (April 1997 to present)?
http://www.woodfortr...m:1997.25/trend

The analysis I ran was from January 1997 through December 2011.  The time interval you propose should not be much different.  But I would have to set up the entire dataset all over again to run the calculations.  There is no reason you can't do it as easily as I can.  SO:  run the calculations and tell us.
Doug

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 09 December 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

The analysis I ran was from January 1997 through December 2011.  The time interval you propose should not be much different.  But I would have to set up the entire dataset all over again to run the calculations.  There is no reason you can't do it as easily as I can.  SO:  run the calculations and tell us.
Doug

are you saying this calculator is incorrect?
http://www.woodfortr...m:1997.25/trend

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 09 December 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

Compared to the real trend;

why have you cherry picked your start point?
you're only trying to find a 15 year flat period.

what is the trend from April 1997 to present in the HADCRUT3 dataset?

...i can't believe this nonsense has gone on for 7 pages!

Edited by Little Fish, 09 December 2012 - 08:37 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 09 December 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

why have you cherry picked your start point?
you're only trying to find a 15 year flat period.

what is the trend from April 1997 to present in the HADCRUT3 dataset?

...i can't believe this nonsense has gone on for 7 pages!

Little Fish - have you lost your mind - that is a complete homogenous dataset (the satelite record) - that ain't cherry picking that's just data.

I can't believe you are arguing over a cherry picked slice of a complete dataset - over 7 pages.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1o29]

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

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.

I have to confess to a mistake in the calculations:  when I deleted the 1996 datapoint to make my list match yours, I forgot to change n = 16 to n=15.  That kind of messed things up.

At any rate, the corrected figures are:
NCDC:  Average annual temperature change 1997-2011, inclusive, is +0.0096 degrees C.  That produced an F-value of 3.968.  F(0.95,1,14)=4.600.  The straight-line model does not fit the data.  The rate of slope is changing.

Hadcrut3:  Average annual temperature change 1997-2011, inclusive, is -0.0061 degrees C.  F=0.017.  F(0.95,1,14) = 4.600.  The straight-line model does not fit the data.  The rate of slope is changing.

RSS, lower stratosphere over USA:  Average annual temperature change 1997-2011, inclusive, is +0.013 degrees C.  F=37.392.  F(0.95,1,14) = 4.600.  The straight-line model fits the data.  The rate of slope is constant.

SO:  your contention that temps during that time interval have a constant value of zero might be right for the lower stratosphere over the US, but neither global surface temperature dataset can be fit with a straight line.  And means that at least sometime in that interval, the value is NOT zero.

Quote

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.

As I just showed, the surface temps HAVE NOT been flat for 15 years.  If that were so, we could fit a straight line to the data.  That is not the case.

Sorry about the calculation mistake earlier, but your basic premise is still false.
Doug

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 09 December 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Little Fish - have you lost your mind

I know what year and month it is. Doug doesn't.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 09 December 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

I know what year and month it is. Doug doesn't.

OK.  So what do your calculations say?  Mine say there isn't a fifteen-year straight line anywhere in the surface data's 1997-2011 time frame.  Reset the dates if you like, but at best that will only shift things by three months - not nearly enough to produce the fifteen-year zero slope you're looking for.  How do I know that?  The data can't be fit with a straight line model.  You have to have a curve to achieve significance at the 95% level.  And that means that in at least part of that period, there HAS TO be a non-zero rate of slope.  QED.
Doug

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 09 December 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

Sorry about the calculation mistake earlier, but your basic premise is still false.

what basic premise is false?

this one maybe? which you just pulled out of your hat :
"your contention that temps during that time interval have a constant value of zero"

how about just calculating the trend from crutem3 between April 1997 and the present?