Global Warming Test

First, SF has yet to admit he was wrong that 1998 was the hottest year on record. He was wrong. It was 2005.

Second, only a complete amateur hack, and member of the flat earth society, would conciously pick two data points - 1998 and 2007 - and "draw a straight line through them" to define a valid trend.





SF: I just "drew a straight line" between the data points 1981 and 1989, and it proves "global cooling".

The median global temp went down from 1981 to 1989. If you "draw a straight line" between those years.


:rolleyes: Moron.
 
Oh, fuck off. This is the height of dishonesty. You have presented this as some sort of conclusive thing - we can draw a straight line between '97 & 2007, and no increase, so presto, no global warming!

THAT is why you are such an idiot. THAT is why I tried explaining anomolies to you, and how a 1-year variation is meaningless to a climate scientist. THAT is why - for something like climate change - a more comprehensive view is looked at to determine "trends".

Jesus, have I wasted way too much time with your pea of a brain. You are 12years old; you DO NOT belong in any discussion about science, and you need to stop posting re: global warming. You are in way, way over your head. Like I said, I haven't seen someone argue with such simplisitic interpretations since Dano.

So you are saying that the globe on average is warmer than it was ten years ago?

Yes, the past ten years have been warmer than the preceding twenty. There was certainly warming and it appears to have stuck... but why did it not continue to increase?

Yes, a one year variation is indeed meaningless... which is why I used a ten year period. A decade is hardly meaningless when you consider that the data being used only goes back 130 years or so.

Are you so set in your mind that you cannot even fathom a discussion on this?

talk about childish.
 
SF: I just "drew a straight line" between the data points 1981 and 1989, and it proves "global cooling".

The median global temp went down from 1981 to 1989. If you "draw a straight line" between those years.


:rolleyes: Moron.

Tell us about the difference between averages and means again gumby.

Again, YOU are cherry picking data. An 8 year sample with a random start point. I am taking the previous ten years. Which is a common statistical data set. Just as looking at the previous twenty would be.

Again, I am not saying that we have not had global warming. I am not saying that the past ten years are comprised of some of the warmest on record.

But since you are too ignorant to understand that "means" ARE "averages"... how could I possibly expect you to comprehend the fact that temperatures are today where they were ten years ago?
 
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.


this statement is accurate. Scientists don't use an average, between two data points (aka, 1998 and 2007) to define a "trend".


Speaking of randomly choosing years, you randomly chose the year 1998, and "drew a straight line" from that year to 2007, to define a "trend".

I can randomly choose any number of years and "draw a straight line" to another year to "prove" global cooling, if I wanted to be an idiot.

Every educated person on this thread knows your talking out of your ass. There's a reason you have battleborne and tinfoil on your side.
 
"Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.


this statement is accurate. Scientists don't use averages, between two data points (aka, 1998 and 2007) to define a "trend".


Speaking of randomly choosing years, you randomly chose the year 1998, and "drew a straight line" from that year to 2007, to define a "trend".

I can randomly choose any number of years and "draw a straight line" to another year to "prove" global cooling.

Every educated person on this thread knows your talking out of your ass. There's a reason you have battleborne and tinfoil on your side.

2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998

Not random tool... It is the previous TEN years... no matter how many times you stamp your feet.

Again, a trendline is always linear.... and it always runs through the initial data point and the end data point. Go ask any scientist if this is true. Trendlines are always linear... (a clue for you is the term "line"). Again, a trendline does not show the complete picture. It simply shows the relationship between the starting point and ending point.

This does not mean that temperatures did not vary in between. It means just what the data says it means. That the average temperature at the start of the ten years is the same as the average temperature at the end of the ten years.

In between it varied... including 2005 spiking to the new record.

It does not change the fact that when looking at the previous 20 years that the trendline shows the global warming. As I stated, the further back you go, the clearer the picture is going to be. So five years is better than one, ten is better than five, twenty better than ten etc....
 
"Every educated person on this thread knows your talking out of your ass. There's a reason you have battleborne and tinfoil on your side."

Hey - don't forgot AHZ...
 
"I can randomly choose any number of years and "draw a straight line" to another year to "prove" global cooling. "

As for the above, no, it would not "prove" global cooling. It would show that the trend over that time frame was cooling. There is a difference.

please explain to us again the difference between averages and means gumby.
 
"I can randomly choose any number of years and "draw a straight line" to another year to "prove" global cooling. "

As for the above, no, it would not "prove" global cooling. It would show that the trend over that time frame was cooling. There is a difference.

please explain to us again the difference between averages and means gumby.


Dude, it's okay! Just admit you don't really understand climate science. I promise, we won't hold it against you. No one expects you to be an expert on the market, and the economy, and whatever else we argue hear, and understand climate science & how trends in that area are measured, as well. Don't fret!

Please, just admit it. It will be a good character-builder, and I promise, you will feel better afterwards...
 
Cypress: "I can randomly choose any number of years and "draw a straight line" to another year to "prove" global cooling. "

Superfreak: As for the above, no, it would not "prove" global cooling. It would show that the trend over that time frame was cooling. There is a difference.

You didn't open up an excel spreadsheet, like I told you, did you?

No, you're wrong as usual. And, as others have noted, you're being a blockhead who likes to pretend your an armchair expert on everything.

Drawing a line between the two endpoints of a data set, is not a valid trend. You would be laughed out of the room, with any group of scientists, financial analysts, or statisticians for suggesting that that is your method of trend analysis.

Unless, and until you open up Excel, and click on the trend analysis tools to demonstrate this to yourself, its pointless to go in circles with your hackery.
 
Dude, it's okay! Just admit you don't really understand climate science. I promise, we won't hold it against you. No one expects you to be an expert on the market, and the economy, and whatever else we argue hear, and understand climate science & how trends in that area are measured, as well. Don't fret!

Please, just admit it. It will be a good character-builder, and I promise, you will feel better afterwards...

So which is it?

Do you want me to let you have your faux victory by not "getting the last word"? Or do you want me to have the last word by addressing your latest moronic post?

Which is it?

How about you just admit that you didn't know a trendLINE is linear? Or perhaps you could simply discontinue with your strawman that suggests I wanted you to ignore everything that happened in between the two data points?

Or perhaps you could recognize that I agree that by changing the timeframe you change the trendline? Or that I agree that the past decade on average has been warmer than the preceeding 20?

We both know you are not going to admit that temperatures today on average are the same as they were ten years ago. Because that would force you to think about why that might be. Instead you will go off on some little tirade about how looking back ten years doesn't acknowledge that there were changes during the ten year time frame..... blah blah blah.

But no.... I understand, you will continue to act as though I am trying to proclaim myself an expert on climate science, when in reality we have been discussing statistical analysis.

Now seriously... I don't want you to cry, so this will be my last post on this subject.... so come right on in and say whatever you wish.... have at it....
 
bump... just for some laughs at the flat earth global warming fear mongers...


Thanks for the opportunity to post this in a relevant thread:

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade -- due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean -- 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years -- 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 -- as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.

“There’s always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year’s ranking, but usually that misses the point,” said James Hansen, the director of GISS. “There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated."

January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.

The near-record temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures in the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while also increasing its tendency to blow from north to south and draw cold air southward from the Arctic. This resulted in an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north.

"Of course, the contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the U.S. temperature does not affect the global temperature much,' said Hansen.


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html
 
You're bumping a thread from early '08?

That's a bit sad.

I've already come clean on this issue & put it to rest. You win; enjoy your pollutants....

yes... more so directed at Cypress for his idiotic strawman thread...

I know you have come clean on this issue.

But don't go starting crap about pollutants now... I would hate to have to bring up all the threads where I stated we need to clean up the air, land and water from pollutants and make you look foolish. :)
 
Back
Top