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

# Projections of sea level are underestimated

104 replies to this topic

### #106 Doug1o29

Doug1o29

Telekinetic

• Member
• 7,388 posts
• Joined:01 Aug 2007
• Gender:Male
• Location:oklahoma

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:45 PM

Little Fish, on 09 December 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

what basic premise is false?
As I understand it, your premise is that there has been no change in global mean temps from 1997 through 2011 (or alternatively, April 1997 to "present.").  As the dataset ends in October, that is the meaning of "present" in this context.

Quote

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"

If you are trying to say that there has been no change in global temps in that time interval, then that is your premise.  If have merely stated it more clearly to facilitate testing and understanding of what it is that is being tested.

Quote

how about just calculating the trend from crutem3 between April 1997 and the present?
That is an involved calculation requiring adjustments for the fact that some months are represented 16 times, while others are represented only 15 times.  That gives unequal weight to some parts of the year and distorts the results.  Also, there is no reason that you can't do that yourself.  So how about it?

It seems to me that you are grasping at straws here.  Cherry-picking the time frame by shifting it three months forward will barely affect the numbers at all.  Data from the first ten months of 2012 show it to be warmer than the average for 1997-2011, suggesting that 2012 will be the fourth or fifth hottest year on record.  That will increase the slope of the line, weakening your contention even further.  A better idea that gets us around the calculation problem is to wait until the December figures are published, then run the calculations using 1997 through 2012.  Much easier to calculate and also more indicative of what is really happening.

Also, there is no straight line slope in the surface data.  That means that at least once, the trend was NOT zero.  And that means that the rate of temperature change changed during the 1997-2011 period.  Shifting the reference period slightly will not have much effect as the F-values are nowhere near the critical values.
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

### #107 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 10 December 2012 - 12:08 AM

if you can't do it, then use a spreadsheet or the online interactive calculator I showed you.

hadcrut3, april 1997-present (more than 15 years), you don't need a number, you just have to look at the red trend line, here:

http://www.woodfortr...gl/from:1997.25

if you want to look at the red trend line closely then delete where it says "series 2" on the right in the above link.

Edited by Little Fish, 10 December 2012 - 12:14 AM.

### #108 Doug1o29

Doug1o29

Telekinetic

• Member
• 7,388 posts
• Joined:01 Aug 2007
• Gender:Male
• Location:oklahoma

Posted 10 December 2012 - 01:46 PM

Little Fish, on 10 December 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

if you can't do it, then use a spreadsheet or the online interactive calculator I showed you.

hadcrut3, april 1997-present (more than 15 years), you don't need a number, you just have to look at the red trend line, here:

http://www.woodfortr...gl/from:1997.25

if you want to look at the red trend line closely then delete where it says "series 2" on the right in the above link.
The online calculator does not correct for autocorrelation or seasonal (monthly) variability.  Neither does it use the right model (The straight line doesn't fit.).  Do I think they made a mistake?  With those failures, what do you think?

As demonstrated above, the actual line curves.  That means it is changing and your hypothesis of 15 years with no change in surface temperatures is false.

Remember the story about the guy with one foot in a tub of boiling water and the other frozen into a block of ice?  On average, he was comfortable.  That's what you're trying to do - apply an average to a situation that doesn't warrant it.

It is time for you to take a beginning course in statistics - the straight-line model is covered in high school stat courses.  Until you do that, you will not even be aware of the number of unwarranted assumptions you are making.
Doug

P.S.: my questions about what you think are not just rhetorical. If you try to anser them, you will have to think about what you are doing/saying.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 10 December 2012 - 01:50 PM.

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

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users