(01-20-2016 04:35 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:47 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:36 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 02:16 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The headline is hottest year on record, what's the problem? The NOAA is very explicit about when the record starts: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-in...bal/201512

maybe you confused "hottest year on record" with "hottest year ever". That's your issue.

I'm not confused.

If the headline was "hottest year since 1880," no one would read it. Its such a small sample size, it is insignificant. That is the point. There is NO point.

You seem to be unable to discern what is important versus what isn't.

According to who? What Do you think they're sampling? What's an appropriate sample size for what they're measuring? Do you understand why a 30 year period is commonly used as a baseline?

Why is a 30 year period used as a baseline?

They need a sample large account for longer term variations and anomalies, but short enough to make meaningful comparisons (not that the 30 year baseline period is the only kind of sample being used). It's not possible to compare the present climate to the climate of the early 20th century if the baseline period includes both periods you wish to compare.

source?

(01-20-2016 04:41 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 04:35 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:47 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:36 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  I'm not confused.

If the headline was "hottest year since 1880," no one would read it. Its such a small sample size, it is insignificant. That is the point. There is NO point.

You seem to be unable to discern what is important versus what isn't.

According to who? What Do you think they're sampling? What's an appropriate sample size for what they're measuring? Do you understand why a 30 year period is commonly used as a baseline?

Why is a 30 year period used as a baseline?

They need a sample large account for longer term variations and anomalies, but short enough to make meaningful comparisons (not that the 30 year baseline period is the only kind of sample being used). It's not possible to compare the present climate to the climate of the early 20th century if the baseline period includes both periods you wish to compare.

source?

From the World Meteorological Organization:

Quote:Climate “normals” are reference points used by climatologists to compare current climatological trends to that of the past or what is considered “normal”. A Normal is defined as the arithmetic average of a climate element (e.g. temperature) over a 30-year period. A 30 year period is used, as it is long enough to filter out any interannual variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends. The current climate normal period is calculated from 1 January 1961 to 31 December 1990.

(01-20-2016 04:47 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 04:41 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 04:35 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:47 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  According to who? What Do you think they're sampling? What's an appropriate sample size for what they're measuring? Do you understand why a 30 year period is commonly used as a baseline?

Why is a 30 year period used as a baseline?

They need a sample large account for longer term variations and anomalies, but short enough to make meaningful comparisons (not that the 30 year baseline period is the only kind of sample being used). It's not possible to compare the present climate to the climate of the early 20th century if the baseline period includes both periods you wish to compare.

source?

From the World Meteorological Organization:

Quote:Climate “normals” are reference points used by climatologists to compare current climatological trends to that of the past or what is considered “normal”. A Normal is defined as the arithmetic average of a climate element (e.g. temperature) over a 30-year period. A 30 year period is used, as it is long enough to filter out any interannual variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends. The current climate normal period is calculated from 1 January 1961 to 31 December 1990.

where is the link?

(01-20-2016 04:51 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 04:47 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 04:41 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 04:35 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:47 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Why is a 30 year period used as a baseline?

They need a sample large account for longer term variations and anomalies, but short enough to make meaningful comparisons (not that the 30 year baseline period is the only kind of sample being used). It's not possible to compare the present climate to the climate of the early 20th century if the baseline period includes both periods you wish to compare.

source?

From the World Meteorological Organization:

Quote:Climate “normals” are reference points used by climatologists to compare current climatological trends to that of the past or what is considered “normal”. A Normal is defined as the arithmetic average of a climate element (e.g. temperature) over a 30-year period. A 30 year period is used, as it is long enough to filter out any interannual variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends. The current climate normal period is calculated from 1 January 1961 to 31 December 1990.

where is the link?

http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/...oducts.php

It was pretty damn hot in 1979. Lol

And here's an explanation of how a baseline is used:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-ref...emperature

Who cares?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(01-20-2016 06:11 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Who cares?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

A lot of people. If you don't care, why bother responding?

(01-20-2016 01:12 PM)VA49er Wrote:  So, "on record" means going all the way back to 1980?

before I dig deeper....

kudos and

(01-20-2016 03:36 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 02:16 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 02:10 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 02:05 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 01:55 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  "On record" means going back to 1880, which given proper context, isn't much different than 1980. It is still an exceptionally small amount of data for a very large and complex system.

Which is why we don't rely solely on data recorded over the last couple of centuries.

So, what is your point, and the point of the article then? The headline should be the hottest year since 1880.

The headline is hottest year on record, what's the problem? The NOAA is very explicit about when the record starts: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-in...bal/201512

maybe you confused "hottest year on record" with "hottest year ever". That's your issue.

I'm not confused.

If the headline was "hottest year since 1880," no one would read it. Its such a small sample size, it is insignificant. That is the point. There is NO point.

You seem to be unable to discern what is important versus what isn't.

This

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

The problem with the 30 year sample is we only have 5-6 data points which isn't a significant enough to draw a conclusion

I've got a question: All these Climate Change people, from where do they get their funds to study all this?

(01-20-2016 07:15 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  The problem with the 30 year sample is we only have 5-6 data points which isn't a significant enough to draw a conclusion

You don't think borehole data is reliable? Or climate proxies?

(01-20-2016 07:28 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I've got a question: All these Climate Change people, from where do they get their funds to study all this?

the ones that pay taxes to whomever....

it's akin to waking up and wiping one's arse with a twenty or toiletries (unless blind)

fk'n idjuts that believe in idjuts.....

one should only laugh......

So post #1 has a cherry picking chart. Then the same post has a quote criticizing the other side of cherry picking. Priceless.

(01-20-2016 07:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  So post #1 has a cherry picking chart. Then the same post has a quote criticizing the other side of cherry picking. Priceless.

Cherry picking chart, huh? I'll bet you that if I posted a chart from the same dataset, but at a longer timescale, it'd look even worse.

What a sh!t argument.

(01-20-2016 08:00 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 07:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  So post #1 has a cherry picking chart. Then the same post has a quote criticizing the other side of cherry picking. Priceless.

Cherry picking chart, huh? I'll bet you that if I posted a chart from the same dataset, but at a longer timescale, it'd look even worse.

What a sh!t argument.

sorry, "if......longer" doesn't cut like Clinton's knife shaped that '-ski' slope......

2015 Was Not Even Close To Hottest Year On Record

(01-20-2016 08:29 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  2015 Was Not Even Close To Hottest Year On Record

You should read some of the comments, and then about the UAH 6 dataset itself:

Quote:Mr. Taylor — I notice that you cite merely one source of data: John Christy’s satellite temperature dataset, developed at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Your argument would be far more convincing — I could also say “honest” — if you included information on the high levels of uncertainty in that data set. May I suggest an unbiased reading of this examination of those uncertainties: http://bit.ly/1ZwQqk5

Christy’s UAH dataset (not direct surface but inferred mid-tropospheric temperature data, as I’m sure you know but didn’t say …) is incongruent with other datasets from, for example, NOAA, NASA, BEST, the British Met Office, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, and others.

But you chose to focus only on the UAH dataset — and yet you accuse the global climate-science community of “misleading head-fakes.”

And speaking of misleading, why don’t you prominently post the fact that you are, as your bio says, a “senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute,” an organization known throughout the actual, honest scientific community as a front for “push[ing] the agenda of” fossil fuel interests?

Maybe we should look at several satellite sources, just to get a fair view of the situation:



Or maybe a fun graph illustrating the reliability differences between satellite and thermometer data:



Or another one, showing that direct measurements of the troposphere (by weather balloons) cast doubt on what satellites are showing:

(01-20-2016 08:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 08:29 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  2015 Was Not Even Close To Hottest Year On Record

You should read some of the comments, and then about the UAH 6 dataset itself:

Quote:Mr. Taylor — I notice that you cite merely one source of data: John Christy’s satellite temperature dataset, developed at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Your argument would be far more convincing — I could also say “honest” — if you included information on the high levels of uncertainty in that data set. May I suggest an unbiased reading of this examination of those uncertainties: http://bit.ly/1ZwQqk5

Christy’s UAH dataset (not direct surface but inferred mid-tropospheric temperature data, as I’m sure you know but didn’t say …) is incongruent with other datasets from, for example, NOAA, NASA, BEST, the British Met Office, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, and others.

But you chose to focus only on the UAH dataset — and yet you accuse the global climate-science community of “misleading head-fakes.”

And speaking of misleading, why don’t you prominently post the fact that you are, as your bio says, a “senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute,” an organization known throughout the actual, honest scientific community as a front for “push[ing] the agenda of” fossil fuel interests?

in this realm, any relative data coupled with predictability is as solid as what splatters the porcelain in the morn' before coffee.....

a limited data set is just lunacy in totality.....the entire climate/human exchange is beyond stupid0