Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
tmcom

Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

801 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

lost_shaman
5 minutes ago, Essan said:

date from the first half of the twentieth century. The general recommendation is to use 30-year periods of reference. The 30-year period of reference was set as a standard mainly because only 30 years of data were available for summarization when the recommendation was first made.

Yes exactly, as I've stated this sever times over the last year. The 30 years has been simply adopted purely out of tradition not because it is supperiour as a length of time for a Baseline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
3 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Yes exactly, as I've stated this sever times over the last year. The 30 years has been simply adopted purely out of tradition not because it is supperiour as a length of time for a Baseline.

I agree that a longer baseline might be better, but 30 years is that accepted convention

I am not sure that a 50 or 100 year period would make any difference when it comes to current anthropogenic-induced climate change though.  Except to make it even more obvious ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
5 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Well that is not the baseline that the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) are using, they are using the 1979 - 2000 baseline. Maybe you should send them an e-mail and tell them they are doing it all wrong Mr. Smug!!!

In fact the 1979 - 2000 baseline shows higher anomalies than when compared to the 1981 - 2010 baseline. Probably why they are using it.

There are lots of different baselines in use.  NCDC uses 1951 to 1980.  1981-2010 is used by the National Weather Service.

But the 30-year requirement doesn't mean you have to use a particular baseline.  All it means is you have to have enough data to show that the phenomenon your talking about isn't just a statistical anomaly.  Six years is a statistical anomaly.

Doug

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
2 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

There are lots of different baselines in use.  NCDC uses 1951 to 1980.  1981-2010 is used by the National Weather Service.

But the 30-year requirement doesn't mean you have to use a particular baseline.  All it means is you have to have enough data to show that the phenomenon your talking about isn't just a statistical anomaly.  Six years is a statistical anomaly.

Doug

 

Like i said 30 years was simply adopted by some for no other reason than tradition. There are many other baseline lengths, 30 years is popular but again out of tradition and there are others in use like the 1979-2000 baseline the  U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction seems to use a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

And since we are talking about baselines... Look at how easy it is to make an anomaly chart look ALARMIST if you just use the coldest part of the 20th century baseline 1951 - 1980 which is the most popular baseline that Alarmist use.

fig-15-ncar-r1-gata-daily-2019-02-28-ref

The next one (2011-2040) will trace a wiggly line slightly below the green one.  Yet it's all the same graph.

And what is alarming about a two-year anomaly?  Even if it showed some extreme deviation, it wouldn't mean anything by itself.  "Hotter" and "colder" only mean something when you have other data for comparison.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
2 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Like i said 30 years was simply adopted by some for no other reason than tradition. There are many other baseline lengths, 30 years is popular but again out of tradition and there are others in use like the 1979-2000 baseline the  U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction seems to use a lot.

Thirty years is the shortest baseline that provides any statistical significance.  I prefer 50.  One can use almost anything if he can show that he has a real phenomenon to describe.

Doug

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

And since we are talking about baselines... Look at how easy it is to make an anomaly chart look ALARMIST if you just use the coldest part of the 20th century baseline 1951 - 1980 which is the most popular baseline that Alarmist use.

fig-15-ncar-r1-gata-daily-2019-02-28-ref

What that shows is how much warmer the past 2 years have been compared with the period 1951-80 (a baseline I have never seen anyone use!)  Whilst even against the most recent, commonly used, baseline it's still been consistently warmer!

So, yeah, maybe it proves global warming.

Edited by Essan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
10 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

The next one (2011-2040) will trace a wiggly line slightly below the green one. 

Only if we are seeing Global Cooling!

11 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Yet it's all the same graph

Yes Capt. Obvious.

12 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

And what is alarming about a two-year anomaly?  Even if it showed some extreme deviation, it wouldn't mean anything by itself.  "Hotter" and "colder" only mean something when you have other data for comparison.

 

Good dodge Doug. I was not making any point about a two year anomaly the graph shows how the different baselines show different levels of warming when the actual data is exactly the same!

That said, the 1951 - 1980 baseline was the coolest baseline of the 20th century. So it over exaggerates the delta T anomalies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
13 minutes ago, Essan said:

Whilst even against the most recent, commonly used, baseline it's still been consistently warmer!

Barely warmer all while in El Nino conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
30 minutes ago, Essan said:

La  Nina or neutral for most of the period shown

Wrong.

2018   1   25.57   26.45   -0.88
2018   2   25.98   26.66   -0.68
2018   3   26.50   27.21   -0.71
2018   4   27.32   27.73   -0.41
2018   5   27.74   27.85   -0.11
2018   6   27.77   27.65    0.12
2018   7   27.42   27.26    0.16
2018   8   26.95   26.91    0.04
2018   9   27.19   26.80    0.39
2018  10   27.62   26.75    0.86
2018  11   27.61   26.75    0.86
2018  12   27.49   26.65    0.84
2019   1   27.21   26.45    0.76
2019   2   27.49   26.66    0.83
2019   3   28.11   27.21    0.91
2019   4   28.46   27.73    0.72
2019   5   28.49   27.85    0.64

Values of -0.5 is La Nina and -0.5 are El Nino condition. Between those values are nutral but a warn neutral is different that a cool neutral. So lets count. 3 La Nina months, 6 neutral months (only 2 cool, 4 warm), and 8 El Nino months. 

So what you said was the exact opposite of the truth.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
9 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Wrong.

So what you said was the exact opposite of the truth.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt

The period shown on the graph only goes up till March. So drop 2 of the El Nino months. Then you have 9 LN and neutral to 6 EN.

In other words, most are LN to neutral.  Essan was completely correct.  Even if you include the 2, still completely correct.

You've got a funny understanding of truth.  Unsurprising.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
Posted (edited)

Semantics

And the graph only goes up to March, not May :P  

But whether 13 or 15 months, so what?  It's warmer any 30 year ave, during all of which there were El Ninos, including some much stronger than the current weak affair.

This despite all natural (and some anthropgenic) forcings being towards cooling ....


Edit: Doc Socks beat me to it :)  

Edited by Essan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
40 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Then you have 9 LN and neutral to 6 EN

Nonsense! 3 La Nina months, 7 El Nino months, 2 negative neutral months, and 4 positive neutral months. That's from his link. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
36 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Nonsense! 3 La Nina months, 7 El Nino months, 2 negative neutral months, and 4 positive neutral months. That's from his link. 

Which, besides your incorrect addition of another El Nino month, is correct.  And, it's what Essan said. Again, we must do some math problems.

What is 12+3?

Is 9>6?

So far you've answered these math problems incorrectly in several posts.  Hopefully we can put you on the right track.  Teaching is a rewarding experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
2 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

The period shown on the graph only goes up till March. So drop 2 of the El Nino months. Then you have 9 LN and neutral to 6 EN.

The difference between his and my data is one month. So I was wrong saying his has the extra month at the end, but you miscounted by one month as well saying 6 when there are 7. So get off your high horse.

 

38 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Is 9>6?

 

Are you dense? There are only 3 La Nina months in 2018 NOT 9 There are 7 El Nino months in the 16 month period. There are 6 neutral months.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior

He was commenting on the graph which went from January 2018 to Match 2019.  How many months is that?

(15, to spoil it.)

Hence why he said there were mostly La Nina and neutral months.  9, in fact.

Got it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
6 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

He was commenting on the graph which went from January 2018 to Match 2019.  How many months is that?

(15, to spoil it.)

Hence why he said there were mostly La Nina and neutral months.  9, in fact.

Got it?

 

 

Are you on meds today?

learn_to_count.jpeg.2965459248995d0dcbc00afc4acc3881.jpeg

Here is the chart Essan posted.

Now you learn to COUNT!!! 

The Blues (3) are La Ninas, the Reds (7) are El Ninos!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior

Sigh.  Education can be frustrating.

What period does your temperature graph show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
9 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Sigh.  Education can be frustrating.

What period does your temperature graph show?

Which one? In post #34 the graph I posted goes through June 2019. Then I posted a graph talking to Doug about Baselines, that one ended in March. 

Then to muddy that watters Essan posted to a chart that ended in April. 

But really you two are confused because you don't have much of a clue about any of this stuff so I'm sure it's all very hard for you guys to follow. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior

Lol.  You're being funny, I think. Still havent figured out the tough math questions though.

Is 9>8?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
2 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Lol.  You're being funny, I think. Still havent figured out the tough math questions though.

Is 9>8?

9 what? There sure as h*** is not 9 La Nina months in anything we were talking about. I suggest getting some rest Dude your a bit out of it tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior

Again, review. 9 months of La Nina or neutral.

Maybe we'd better try something easier than basic arithmetic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
21 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Again, review. 9 months of La Nina or neutral.

Hilarious. You don't understand the information you are looking at. Anything that is negative is indicating La Nina conditions, any thing positive in indicating El Nino conditions. Any thing deviating by 0.5 either positive of negative becomes a true El Nino or La Nina respectively.  

So here... below.

learn_to_count.jpeg.59160b0c14098e28d624359527ac17ed.jpeg

5 negative values, 11 positive values (3 La Nina months, 7 El Nino months). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior

One last time, before you fail this arithmetic section.

How many ENSO-neutral months are there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.