The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 2010 not 'warmest year ever' - close but no banana > Comments

2010 not 'warmest year ever' - close but no banana : Comments

By John McLean, published 24/1/2011

When it comes to temperature 2010 was a bronze medal performance in a lacklustre field.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Bonmot - again, go back and look at your second link. Now try and work out how the author has adjusted the original graphs so that they show an upward trend even in the last 10 years. In fact, you can't. Its quite obscure. The original graphs were better and showed what everyone can agree on, that temperatures have just been bouncing along a plateau for a decade and more.

That's the problem with the greenhouse case, the graphs have to be "adjusted" to make them say what the theory requires.

As for your other comments, its always best to be professional, even in an adverse argument.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 24 January 2011 3:55:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny, care to tell us exactly what other climate scientists would dispute about this piece? It cites various data and does simply calculations, that's all.

So I work in IT. Big deal. I have the IT skills to examine data, not that there was much skill required in debunking any hysterics about 2010 being the hottest year.

Also, I believe Tamino's nonsense as far as I can throw him. Did you read his guff? "... while the thicker red line is the model based on El Nino, volcanic forcing, solar variation, a residual annual cycle, and a time trend." More computer games. No mention about whether a time-lagged ENSO signal was involved despite at least 5 papers (mine included) showing that there is a delay. Watts up with That has a piece that likewise looks at removing ENSO from temperature trends (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/23/will-global-warming-survive-a-strong-la-nina/) and it tells a different story. Is WUWT correct? I don't know because I haven't looked at it in detail. I mention it because Grant Foster's view (i.e Tamino's view) is not the only one and I wouldn't take it as gospel on any matter. I believe that he is or was a colleague of James Hansen, but I may be wrong.

Geoff Davies, I cited the Hadley Centre data because that's what the IPCC uses. Hadley does not ignore the polar regions, provided data across 1961-90 exists so that a "long-term average" can be calculated and the anomaly determined. Your comments about the La Nina show that you didn't bother to read what I wrote about the delayed temperature reaction being the reason that there's little influence in 2010 temperatures. If you are going to comment then it would be wise to read the article properly first.

John McL.
Posted by Snowman, Monday, 24 January 2011 6:41:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon: “That's the problem with the greenhouse case, the graphs have to be "adjusted" to make them say what the theory requires.”

Nonsense.

“Adjusting” data is not that unusual, Mark. Anti-AGW luminaries such as Roy Spencer does it, and Steve McIntyre did it, for good reason (adjusting for satellite drift and for the urban heat island effect in the US, respectively).

Should their adjustments be discounted? Of course not.

Just because you (and snowman) don’t or can’t follow Tamino's “guff”, does not mean it is not worthy. There is much research being conducted to differentiate climate change due to natural variability and GHG’s. Would you have it any other way? Of course not.

It would be helpful Mark, if in studying attribution, to filter out such components as to show the real trend due just to GHG’s. Do you not think?

If you (or snowman) were expert in time series statistics I might pay more attention to your (and his) comments, but you (and he) are clearly not.

Much has been said to involve more professional statisticians (not IT guys) in the next IPCC report. It is extremely disingenuous (and unprofessional, Mark) to debunk time series analysis by ‘eyeballing’ graphs, which you freely admit to doing.

If you want a “professional” dialogue Mark, please show some professionalism in your own comments.

For what it’s worth, I think there is much more to the ocean/atmosphere/land coupled system than meets the eye (pun intended).

.

Oh, and snowman ... yes, you may be wrong – as has been shown before.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 24 January 2011 9:01:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One more thing snowman,

Do you really think Klaus Wolter has rocks in his head too, or NOAA?

You have a lag of 5 years in more ways than one snowman. Do you really not understand why Tamino uses a range in his analysis?

And please, don't answer with "the graphs have to be "adjusted" to make them say what the theory requires" tripe.
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 7:04:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear John McLean.
This is just another prime example of inept analysis (for which you are so renown) . All this blather about next to nothing, so let's go to the data:

Hadcrut3 courtesy" wood for trees": http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend

Would you like to comment on the supposed lack of warming trend? Of course you cherry-pick warming rates on short term scales, but that type of analysis is merely pissant, as you know.

And are you also ignoring data from NASA and NOAA which not only confirm the Hadley data but also confirm the warming trend. And the fact that the 2000's were the warmest decade on any temperature record ("plateauing" at record levels no less, not "cooling" as you infer)

You also refer to some gobbledygook (a mutation of Don Easterbrook's infamous creative license in mapping the warmest temperatures pre 1855) from the ice-core data, completely ignoring current warming. Of course, that was another blatant misinterpretation of the data.

You simply rehash the same old dreary simplistic non-scientific sloganism, so common and expected from Heartland Institute acolytes.
Posted by sillyfilly, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 9:54:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As usual, Kenny has no relevant comment on the facts, but takes the opportunity to make a snide criticism of someone who has it right.

Remember that we are talking about global warming here, and not the unsubstantiated AGW. Even carbon dioxide cannot be shown to be the factor that warmeciles like Kenny wish it to be.

Human activity has no measurable effect on climate, and global warming is not AGW.

Bonmot, another backer of the AGW fraud wants us to confuse global warming with AGW. He has still not produced any scientific backing for the proposition that human emissions have any effect, but has at least shown us that all the suppliers of information on global temperature differ in their results.

Not surprising when one considers the ludicrous representation that the temperature of the globe can be measured, and it certainly does not inspire faith in grant driven scientists,

Bonmot knows quite well that in statistics there are always judgements to be made, which are meant to be made objectively, and where a person has a predisposition, it affects their judgement. Hansen, who is a high grade statistician, never leaves the data alone. He constantly revises it, and it always becomes warmer.

Geoff Davies is back again, an AGW backer who has been constantly requested to produce any proof he has that human emissions have any significance in global warming. He fails to do so, because there is no such science, otherwise the IPCC would not be resorting to the unscientific assertion that it is “very likely”.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 25 January 2011 10:13:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy