The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the
IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!
Yeah, I thought about changing the name of this thread to "Can GOD Stop Global Warming", but that's OK, good conversation is where it's at!!
He already has stopped global warming, which is why we are now discussing "Climate Change."
Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years. We talk moving averages around here too, don't we? Same reason-day to day/week to week variability within longer time-frame trends that we can see on charts.
"To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous," said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.
Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record.
The current El Nino is forecast to get stronger, probably pushing global temperatures even higher next year, scientists say. NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend "will be never talked about again."
The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.
"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."
The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.
The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?
In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.
"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.
Apart from the conflicting data analyses is the eyebrow-raising new book title from Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, "Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance. Leavitt (the author) "said the line was just an attempt to note the irony of a cool couple of years (hello-there's still natural variability within a statistical trend-if there wasn't, we wouldn't need statistics to figure out if there really is high probability a trend is happening). Levitt said he did not do any statistical analysis of temperatures, but "eyeballed" the numbers and noticed 2005 was hotter than the last couple of years. Levitt said the "cooling" reference in the book title refers more to ideas about trying to cool the Earth artificially (iow, he wasn't trying to debunk global warming at all).
Buster, Can you finish this one without saying the words: can't, find, or target?:nuts:
"To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous," said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.
http://www.hcn.org/issues/278/14853
At face value this looks horrific, but that's how these environmental wackos want it to look...But, "carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 30 percent in the past 250 years, and that the current rate of increase is unprecedented in the last 20,000 years" Really?!?...In the last 20,000 years???!??..How many cavemen were there that had meteorological weather stations in their caves back then?
The "evidence" on both sides amounts to opinions, because we have no way of confirming the actual temperature of the earth since it's creation. The link I provided was fairly well researched and cited numerous references. I'm surprised that you so readily dismiss it.VLM, you're absolutely right, I shouldn't have included the "opinion" and just stuck to the evidence and let people decide for themselves. I've tried to stay away from this thread because people have strong opinions, and are not overly enthused about new information that might suggest different conclusions than they want to believe.
Well, here's some more evidence that comes from vegetation at a continental scale. Tree species are now growing 200 miles north of where they were ever before able to grow before (take a look at the hardiness zone map linked below). 700-year old high elevation trees are dying from bugs that are surviving winters at those elevations they never could survive in large numbers before-as witnessed by 700-year old trees dying that have never before been bombarded by mass attacks of the tiny little buggers (pun intended).
http://www.hcn.org/issues/278/14853
and more evidence:
http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm
and here's the "variability with trend" chart from this morning's article. Try to mentally lay a 10-year moving average line on it. The statisticians that did the analysis in the morning article did not know what data they were analyzing. any other group of statisticians running a 10-year moving average on the data would come up with the same answer regarding probability, especially if they didn't know what the data represented. That's the beauty of statistical formulas, in math, 1+1=2.
http://kai03.qwest.com/WindowsLive/...&id=D9BJ4S1O0@news.ap.org&client=gadget&qid=0
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I'll go away and leave the skeptics alone with new information now. Ignore it or consider it, up to you.
