|
FirstAscent
|
 |
January 05, 2013, 08:08:24 PM |
|
Why are we looking at a volcano?
Perhaps you're seeing a different image than I am? There's no volcano in that picture, it's a graph of temperatures. My bad. Now I just see a conveniently selected section of historical temperatures which are rising, and some denier fitted a sine curve to it, conveniently, because linear regression wouldn't have been favorable to his point. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
January 05, 2013, 08:16:55 PM |
|
Why are we looking at a volcano?
Perhaps you're seeing a different image than I am? There's no volcano in that picture, it's a graph of temperatures. My bad. Now I just see a conveniently selected section of historical temperatures which are rising, and some denier fitted a sine curve to it, conveniently, because linear regression wouldn't have been favorable to his point. Or perhaps because linear regression wouldn't fit '79-'85? Those "conveniently selected" datapoints are from here. You're welcome to build your own graph. To recap: skeptic: They fit a sine curve to the data, which is interesting, but will need more time to see if it bears out.
biased: some denier fitted a sine curve to it, conveniently, because linear regression wouldn't have been favorable to his point.
Show some scientific integrity, man. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
January 05, 2013, 08:37:19 PM |
|
Are you done? Do you really think that spamming the thread with posts will encourage me to click the show links?  And since you're clearly trying to drown this out...  |
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
January 05, 2013, 08:39:14 PM |
|
The links explain your errors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
January 05, 2013, 08:43:12 PM |
|
The links explain your errors.
They would more efficiently be delivered by putting them all in one post. By splitting it up like that, you are attempting to flood the thread, drowning out the post you disagree with. Textbook disinfo tactics. |
|
|
|
Littleshop
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1004
|
|
January 05, 2013, 08:57:09 PM |
|
The data is not different. When analyzed normally by most statisticians it is very easy to find the climate change. This author has used ECONOMIC analysis instead and the way he did it he did not find the climate change. His paper is probably valid and does NOT contradict people who use other more scientificly accepted methods to analize the data. Unfortunately for him and his paper it is most probably a tragic misapplication of that analysis model. |
|
|
|
|
bb113
|
|
January 05, 2013, 09:01:43 PM |
|
I actually took the time to reanalyze the data from this paper: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/science/earth/west-antarctica-warming-faster-than-thought-study-finds.html?_r=0It seemed like a good idea since it was about raw data from a single station and therefore there was a minimum of historical context and technical stuff to understand. If you plot the monthly temps and not just the annual average you can clearly see the entire trend since 1960 is accounted for by 1988-1990. What happened in 1989? The sensor stopped working in 1988 and was replaced in 1990. The data in between is interpolated. They then found various problems with the new sensor and adjusted all the temperatures (without saying exactly how, but upward) starting in 1990. Doesn't it seem like a plausible explanation that this "trend" (at least for this site) is actually caused by inaccurate sensor readings? I find it difficult to trust the conclusions drawn from data as noisy as this. With interpolation:  Without Interpolation:  They also adjusted downwards 1.5 C for a calibration error found for the 2002-2011 data. It makes one wonder how many other sensors miscalibrated by a few degrees are collecting data out there. I'm not claiming there is fraud, just a systematic underestimation of uncertainty I find common in my own field. |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
January 05, 2013, 09:14:53 PM |
|
I actually took the time to reanalyze the data from this paper:
Don't tell me! Tell NASA, NOAA, and all the thousands of scientists out there in the field! I'm sure you're right and none of this stuff is worth a shit. It's sad they're all lacking your special insights. Please, for all of us, get in contact with these organizations and the scientists, and explain to them how to do it right. I know that your analysis is so spot on and unbiased (and fully cognizant of the entire context with which it all depends on) that you can overturn all these findings with your quickie (but keen eyed) observations. Again, please, get out there in the world and show these guys how to do it. |
|
|
|
|
|
bb113
|
|
January 05, 2013, 09:26:07 PM |
|
These issues are obvious and take no expertise to understand. They actually note that the trend is due to those years in the paper and spend a bunch of time trying to figure out what may have caused the jump without success.
Also this paper is not NASA, NOAA, etc it is one group whose results are prematurely reported to the media. Your overreliance on credibility rather than investigating the data yourself is a weakness. Credibility is a heuristic, thats all. It should not lead to strong beliefs.
Also, I was thinking about writing this up. There are also a variety of database errors I found they should be alerted to. I need to say that I am impressed at the efforts taken to make the raw data publically available. It is really awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
January 05, 2013, 09:27:29 PM |
|
These issues are obvious and take no expertise to understand. They actually note that the trend is due to those years in the paper and spend a bunch of time trying to figure out what may have caused the jump without success.
Also this paper is not NASA, NOAA, etc it is one group whose results are prematurely reported to the media. Your overreliance on credibility rather than investigating the data yourself is a weakness. Credibility is a heuristic, thats all. It should not lead to strong beliefs.
Also, I was thinking about writing this up. There are also a variety of database errors I found they should be alerted to. I need to say that I am impressed at the efforts taken to make the raw data publically available. It is really awesome.
I'm speaking about your angle on all this in general, not this specific post of yours. |
|
|
|
|
|
bb113
|
|
January 05, 2013, 09:41:45 PM |
|
Also, to give some perspective on these temperature changes that are averages of averages of averages. Here is the graph of the raw 10 minute interval data going back to 1984 (first year available). Upper is points colored by month (starting in january 1984), lower is lines overlayed with the annual average fit in that paper.  This sensor is designated 8903 (eg the filenames will start with 8903 that correspond to this): http://ftp://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/pub/aws/10min/rdr/If you want I will send you the script that harvests the data so you can analyze it for yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
