There wasn't really a global warming "hiatus." Corrected analyses show no slowdown

[DrPizza]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/storie...owdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years.

So, it turns out that there wasn't a "hiatus" from global warming, particularly with a larger data set that includes the past two years. In layman's terms, bunch of points, best fit line - not increasing. Add more points and do a new best fit line: oh yeah, definitely increasing.

 

[DrPizza]

 

[DrPizza]

So that people understand how data is "manipulated:"

Prior to the mid-1970s, ships were the predominant way to measure sea surface temperatures, and since then buoys have been used in increasing numbers. Compared to ships, buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy. "In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data," said Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and one of the study's authors. "In order to accurately compare ship measurements and buoy measurements over the long-term, they need to be compatible. Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis."

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/storie...owdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html



So, it turns out that there wasn't a "hiatus" from global warming, particularly with a larger data set that includes the past two years. In layman's terms, bunch of points, best fit line - not increasing. Add more points and do a new best fit line: oh yeah, definitely increasing.

Well, yeh, but the erroneous piece published a short while ago has already filled the hole in deniers' consciousnesses and that's that. The hole was filled with bullshit, of course, but now that has to be dug out before it can be replaced with anything else.

 

[DrPizza]

Well, yeh, but the erroneous piece published a short while ago has already filled the hole in deniers' consciousnesses and that's that. The hole was filled with bullshit, of course, but now that has to be dug out before it can be replaced with anything else.

Yeah, I debated adding this to that thread, but figured this deserved a thread of its own, since the thread title is the opposite of the other thread title. In other words, one of the thread titles is patently false. This thread title has the backing of a respected scientific organization and publication in a peer reviewed journal. The other thread title has the backing of a Rush Limbaugh lackey and a bunch of people who seem incapable of looking at all the evidence, else are only capable of selectively looking at some evidence because they are so self-obsessed that they couldn't possibly be wrong.

 

[Jaskalas]

One dataset, which was already the outlier, has been edited to include inferior measurements (ship buckets). No surprise, they cool the past and warm the present with adjustments. Just as they do every few years.

That the outlier becomes increasingly so... means that it must suspect unless the methods are fully reviewed, and not by yes-men.

 

[Paratus]

Thanks DrP for the breath of fresh air!

 

[werepossum]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/storie...owdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

So, it turns out that there wasn't a "hiatus" from global warming, particularly with a larger data set that includes the past two years. In layman's terms, bunch of points, best fit line - not increasing. Add more points and do a new best fit line: oh yeah, definitely increasing.

So it doesn't bother you that this supposedly settled science is complete shit at predicting anything and useful only for concocting reasons why their predictions failed but their formulae are still somehow accurate? Is there a single other discipline where you would accept that performance?

Say a group of mathematicians develop a set of equations for solving some particular real world problem, but every time their equations are used they get the wrong answer. They spend a year or three analysing the data set and then announce that their equations are in fact spot-on, they just need to add a few new variables to show how they got the correct answer, people just weren't looking in the right place. Over and over this happens. Are these in fact useful mathematicians? And if so - by what mechanism could their equations ever be disproven?

It's very easy to prove that two and three equal four if you are allowed to go back and reduce three to two.

 

[werepossum]

One dataset, which was already the outlier, has been edited to include inferior measurements (ship buckets). No surprise, they cool the past and warm the present with adjustments. Just as they do every few years.

That the outlier becomes increasingly so... means that it must suspect unless the methods are fully reviewed, and not by yes-men.

Sometime around 2050, climate scientists will have conclusively proven that the Earth was in fact an uninhabitable, solid block of ice until about 1500 AD. Equations don't lie.

 

[fskimospy]

So it doesn't bother you that this supposedly settled science is complete shit at predicting anything and useful only for concocting reasons why their predictions failed but their formulae are still somehow accurate? Is there a single other discipline where you would accept that performance?

Say a group of mathematicians develop a set of equations for solving some particular real world problem, but every time their equations are used they get the wrong answer. They spend a year or three analysing the data set and then announce that their equations are in fact spot-on, they just need to add a few new variables to show how they got the correct answer, people just weren't looking in the right place. Over and over this happens. Are these in fact useful mathematicians? And if so - by what mechanism could their equations ever be disproven?

It's very easy to prove that two and three equal four if you are allowed to go back and reduce three to two.

This is a common mistake. A better comparison would be that this settled science knows that we are in a situation where we know the earth is getting hotter, we just don't know exactly how much. That the earth is warming due to human activities is the settled part.

But yeah, it's probably all just another conspiracy by climate scientists. I'll add it to the list.

 

[boomerang]

Now what?

 

[PokerGuy]

Now what?

Duh, you know the answer. The same as it's always been. Hand over more money and power to lefties who claim to be able to "fix" the "problem".

You're welcome

 

[dphantom]

So a study that rejects the best ocean measurement data we have today - ARGO and satellite - and instead uses EIT and water buckets, is now the gold standard of climate warming.

Fascinating.

 

[boomerang]

Duh, you know the answer. The same as it's always been. Hand over more money and power to lefties who claim to be able to "fix" the problem.

You're welcome

Thanks but I'd hoped to hear from those in the trenches of the climate change movement - the true believers. Their argument always seems to center around "proving" something like there must be some kind of Internet consensus before anything else can happen. I guess what I'm saying is that these threads border on the ridiculous. We get them with regularity and its always the same thing over and over and over. It boils down to, I'm scared, here's why and you must share in my fear. But personally, I'm not interested in holding their hand and telling them that everything is going to be OK. That makes me a bad person in their minds and I'm OK with that and of course that makes me an even badder person, and so on and so on.

But you're not wrong. These same people, when faced with difficult situations always resort to the same answer. That being to throw money at the problem. It's then fixed because "something" was done. If it gets pointed out that their fix was in fact a waste of resources, they blame the opposition. That makes perfect sense to them because they judge themselves on intentions not results. They had good intentions and made the effort and therefore cannot be judged.

But somebody has to watch over the children even if the children resent it. It's the responsible thing to do. Somebody has to assume the role of the adult and if that angers the children well, that's certainly nothing new.

If climate change cultists want to attempt to control the environment of the planet I won't try to stop it. But I won't willingly support it as long as I have a choice. I don't need to be on board. Get crackin'.

 

[Paratus]

So a study that rejects the best ocean measurement data we have today - ARGO and satellite - and instead uses EIT and water buckets, is now the gold standard of climate warming.

Fascinating.

There's no rejection of Argo. Try again.

 

[dphantom]

There's no rejection of Argo. Try again.

ARGO and satellite do not show the trend that adjusted data for water buckets and EIT does.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

All the other datasets are wrong! Looks like a shitload of people just feel off the turnip truck.

 

[glenn1]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/storie...owdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

So, it turns out that there wasn't a "hiatus" from global warming, particularly with a larger data set that includes the past two years. In layman's terms, bunch of points, best fit line - not increasing. Add more points and do a new best fit line: oh yeah, definitely increasing.

Who cares? This is the only graph that maters. And it will look exactly the same 5, 10, 20 years from now and the arguments about "consensus" and all will be exactly the same also.

 

[DrPizza]

So a study that rejects the best ocean measurement data we have today - ARGO and satellite - and instead uses EIT and water buckets, is now the gold standard of climate warming.
Fascinating.

Your post seems to be very disingenuous - created to try to leave a little doubt for people reading the information. Can you show: Where the scientists "rejected" this data, where they relied exclusively on "EIT and water buckets," and how the hell you don't think their careers would be easily destroyed by someone showing that they ignored data that contradicted their research? Are you paid to make these posts? Or is this how you actually think?!

So it doesn't bother you that this supposedly settled science is complete shit at predicting anything and useful only for concocting reasons why their predictions failed but their formulae are still somehow accurate? Is there a single other discipline where you would accept that performance?

Say a group of mathematicians develop a set of equations for solving some particular real world problem, but every time their equations are used they get the wrong answer. They spend a year or three analysing the data set and then announce that their equations are in fact spot-on, they just need to add a few new variables to show how they got the correct answer, people just weren't looking in the right place. Over and over this happens. Are these in fact useful mathematicians? And if so - by what mechanism could their equations ever be disproven?

It's very easy to prove that two and three equal four if you are allowed to go back and reduce three to two.

The settled science is that the Earth is warming and that it's caused by man. To keep it at a very basic level for you, you do know how a best fit line works, right? And, you know how error bars work, right? Are you really arguing that having more points on the curve, then calculating a best fit line should show the exact same slope as with fewer points? What has been done, effectively, is decreasing the error bars - which doesn't necessarily mean that the data point is still in the exact center of the previous error bar.

I'll keep it really simple for you; although the numbers are fictional, it's done so to make the understanding pretty obvious:
Year 1 data: 30 +/- 10 (means the actual is definitely somewhere between 20 and 40)
Year 2 data: 30.1 +/- 10 (means the actual is definitely somewhere between 20.1 and 40.1)
Year 3 data: 29.9 +/- 10 (means the actual is definitely somewhere between 19.9 and 39.9)


Now, looking at those numbers, it would seem that the trend is pretty leveled off. But, suppose that since that time, more information is learned to correlate data that reduces those error bars. So now, the data is
28.3 +/- 3
32.4 +/- 3
34.4 +/- 3

Now, the analysis clearly shows that there's an increase.

Now, in that light, perhaps you realize why your post is not applicable.

 

[fskimospy]

All the other datasets are wrong! Looks like a shitload of people just feel off the turnip truck.

Speaking of falling off the turnip truck, according to one guy here Antarctic glaciers are melting because of volcanoes and not AGW even though the author of the study you base that idea on says that idea is wrong.

Score another win for selective credulity. What's even worse is the total lack of awareness of it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Speaking of falling off the turnip truck, according to one guy here Antarctic glaciers are melting because of volcanoes and not AGW even though the author of the study you base that idea on says that idea is wrong.

Score another win for selective credulity. What's even worse is the total lack of awareness of it.

I'm not playing your game.

 

[xBiffx]

The settled science is that the Earth is warming and that it's caused by man.

Even if you believe the data, nothing, NOTHING in it proves the bolded. Sorry, but you lost any and all objectivity you were trying (poorly) to show with that statement.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not playing your game.

There's no need, because there is no game! I'm just pointing out the glaring hypocrisy in your selective skepticism. I genuinely hope you're just too unaware to notice it because the alternative is you're doing it on purpose, which would be pretty weird.

 

[DrPizza]

Even if you believe the data, nothing, NOTHING in it proves the bolded. Sorry, but you lost any and all objectivity you were trying (poorly) to show with that statement.

If it is not caused by man, then can you suggest a source that hasn't been ruled out? Solar variation: ruled out. Volcanoes: ruled out. All the alternatives, except magic from some aliens wanting to make the planet more suited to their tastes, have been ruled out.

Carbon dioxide: very measurable, and it can be calculated how much has been put out via industrial activity over the last 150 years, easily. What's a little more difficult is calculating exactly where all of that goes. Amazing though that with more and more research into this, every time "wow, this was more than we thought it would be" turns into a "see, they don't know what's going on. They changed what they said," from the deniers who mistakenly believe that everything should have been predicable to 5 significant figures using data and knowledge from 50 years ago.

I cannot fathom how they can't comprehend that more and more research is leading to a better and better understanding and refinements of predictions. It would be like attacking sports broadcasters for, "you said that the Patriots would beat the Bills! Now you're saying that it might be a close game." "Uh, yeah, but we didn't know that Brady had just gotten the flu hours before the game and was violently ill. And, people often feel weak when they have the flu." "You sports broadcasters keep changing your predictions! You don't know what's going on!"

 

[DrPizza]

Speaking of falling off the turnip truck, according to one guy here Antarctic glaciers are melting because of volcanoes and not AGW even though the author of the study you base that idea on says that idea is wrong.

Score another win for selective credulity. What's even worse is the total lack of awareness of it.

The other one that I used to see quoted all the time came from a paper on examining increased output from the sun. The part where some warming was observed on Mars or wherever was quoted all the time with a "see, it's the sun." (I have no idea how the data was collected; I presume black body radiation in the IR.) But, the paper they quoted, they selectively ignored the conclusion that the sun could be responsible for a very small amount of the warming seen, but that it ruled out that the sun was the primary cause.