AGW is relative

Message

jafadmin · #1 Post by **jafadmin** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 02:19

When I was growing up in the midwest, on the farm (Kansas), it was usual to reach 100 degrees °F at some point in the summer, and get down to 0 °F in the winter. In fact, I don't remember a year when that didn't happen on our farm.

So I modified Tony Heller's app (python, public domain) so I can specify a "fixed_Y" switch on the command line which will graph the data against a "Y" axis that is a fixed 0-100 °F axis instead of the automatic "Y" axis based on the data range.

So anyways, this is the 125 year climate data mean against a normal thermometer:

Feel free to hyperventilate anyways, if you're so inclined ..

So:
green dotted line = Trend (linear regression)
red line = 5 year mean
blue line = data points

>>> NOAA GHCN web page <<<

Sauce: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/d ... hcn.tar.gz

.

s243a · #2 Post by **s243a** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 02:42

Why not do it in Kelvin or rankine and then you can make the changes look very small!

musher0 · #3 Post by **musher0** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 02:59

Hi.

AGW? Which is it?
All Girl Weekend?
Actual Gross Weight?

Hyperventilate? (Do I need to breathe in a paper bag while reading your post?!)
I already know that you're in your own climate-skeptic bubble!
So graph away, my American friend, graph away!

Anyway, to speak a language is to speak so that ALL speakers of that language
understand you. Please? For next time? TIA.

Sorry if it appears to be falling on you, your message just was the straw that broke
this camel's

back...
A lot of people are in this case, it happens a lot. The poster too often thinks the reader
is of his/her sub-culture, when (s)he is not.
-- Remember --
On a forum post or in an e-mail, people do not see your facial expression, do not hear
your tone of voice, they have no context to help them understand your message.

You actually help your reader understand your message if you are a bit wordier than
you may be naturally. Especially on a cross-cultural forum such as this one. Not to
mention that there's easily 100 sub-cultures of English-speakers around the world:
American, Canadian, UK, Australian, Indian, NZ, ZA, etc.
(Sermon finished!)

BFN.

s243a · #4 Post by **s243a** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 03:09

I'm guessing the original poster means, "Average Global Warning" but I only skimmed the original post. Of course an Average isn't relative but averages can be relative to each other.

I'm guessing what the original poster is trying to say is that the 10 year average warming varies by region of the world and also that a temporal average varies by the length of time that we average over.

A linear fit (e.g. a regression) is like an average.

#5 Post by **Flash** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 03:26

Jafadmin, does the data set you used include the max and min records? It's instructive to look at how often a record maximum was set over that span of time versus how often a record minimum was set. Everywhere I've found that records were kept for, record maximums occur far more often than record minimums, especially since 1950.

jafadmin · #6 Post by **jafadmin** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 03:28

Don't pretend to be retards like Greta

AGW = anthropogenic global warming

Were you guys born on a commune?

.

jafadmin · #7 Post by **jafadmin** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 03:32

Flash wrote:Jafadmin, does the data set you used include the max and min records? It's instructive to look at how often a record maximum was set over that span of time versus how often a record minimum was set. Everywhere I've found that records were kept for, record maximums occur far more often than record minimums, especially since 1950.

Flash .. The dataset I included encompasses everything . Every single measurement for the last 125 years ..

The entire existing climate record.

I hope this helps ..

jafadmin · #8 Post by **jafadmin** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 03:33

s243a wrote:I'm guessing the original poster means, "Average Global Warning" but I only skimmed the original post. Of course an Average isn't relative but averages can be relative to each other.

I'm guessing what the original poster is trying to say is that the 10 year average warming varies by region of the world and also that a temporal average varies by the length of time that we average over.

A linear fit (e.g. a regression) is like an average.

So, you have no idea what the "mean" for 125 years means? Why even bother to comment?

jafadmin · #9 Post by **jafadmin** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 03:44

s243a wrote:Why not do it in Kelvin or rankine and then you can make the changes look very small!

I published the sauce. Get busy ..

BTW, do you really think doing the output in celsius would magically produce a "hockey stick" for you?

#10 Post by **Flash** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 04:00

I think all s243 meant was that plotting your graph with a vertical axis of 300 Kelvins would make the variations look even smaller than the vertical axis of 100 F that you used. Nothing to do with hockey sticks.

s243a · #11 Post by **s243a** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 04:24

Flash wrote:I think all s243 meant was that plotting your graph with a vertical axis of 300 Kelvins would make the variations look even smaller than the vertical axis of 100 F that you used. Nothing to do with hockey sticks.

I think he's trolling, which can be fun but to effectively troll he/she should know which side of the debate that I"m on.

s243a · #12 Post by **s243a** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 04:27

jafadmin wrote:Don't pretend to be retards like Greta

APG = anthropogenic global warming

Were you guys born on a commune?

I don't think that this post is worth a response but your post seemed to be about relative averages and not anthropocentrism.

s243a · #13 Post by **s243a** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 04:33

jafadmin wrote:
s243a wrote:Why not do it in Kelvin or rankine and then you can make the changes look very small!
I published the sauce. Get busy ..

BTW, do you really think doing the output in celsius would magically produce a "hockey stick" for you?

Flash wrote:I think all s243 meant was that plotting your graph with a vertical axis of 300 Kelvins would make the variations look even smaller than the vertical axis of 100 F that you used. Nothing to do with hockey sticks.

Thankyou Flash.

And my suggestion (i.e. smaller variations) would make the original graph look further from a hockey stick. BTW the "Hockey Stick" controversy is based on prediction using bad proxies and not solely based on the actual temperature record.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Therefore, we cannot produce the hockey stick, based on the actual raw temperature data unless we fit it to some curve that resembled a hockey stick.

Nothing to do with hockey sticks.

Not really except maybe very indirectly with lots of missed irony!

musher0 · #14 Post by **musher0** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 04:53

Well, then, if hockey sticks can't be produced, Canadians won't participate.

(Context: hockey is our national sport.)

s243a · #15 Post by **s243a** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 05:05

musher0 wrote:Well, then, if hockey sticks can't be produced, Canadians won't participate.
(Context: hockey is our national sport.)

Does that mean we have Michael Mann to blame for Stephan Dion naming his dog Kyoto and promising so much at the climate accords?

musher0 · #16 Post by **musher0** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 05:18

Look, jafadmin.

Are you a statistician? Did you graduate in statistics? Or are you a trained meteorologist?

With due respect for you as a person and for your helpful posts on this forum in your
field of networks, if you're not a trained statistician or meteorologist, please stop doing
this, stop making a fool of yourself.

Probably 50,000 qualified scientists from the best science institutes have gone through
the world weather data in the past half-century and concluded that there is currently
an abnormal increase of ~ 1.5 C in the climate since the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but what qualifications do you have to take them on?

Respectfully

s243a · #17 Post by **s243a** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 05:23

musher0 wrote:Look, jafadmin.

Are you a statistician? Did you graduate in statistics? Or are you a trained meteorologist?

With due respect for you as a person and for your helpful posts on this forum in your
field of networks, if you're not a trained statistician or meteorologist, please stop doing
this, stop making a fool of yourself.

Probably 50,000 qualified scientists from the best science institutes have gone through
the world weather data in the past half-century and concluded that there is currently
an abnormal increase of ~ 1.5 C in the climate since the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but what qualifications do you have to take them on?

Respectfully

That's true but that is a considerably weaker statement then we often hear from the alarmists.

bigpup · #18 Post by **bigpup** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 05:26

What was going on during these years?

The number of oil powered devices was not going down.

s243a · #19 Post by **s243a** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 05:28

bigpup wrote:What was going on during these years?

The number of oil powered devices was not going down.

Sure but that's not a scientific argument:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/25/ ... ncrease-2/

P.S. I haven't read the above link yet. The point was only to bring up the concept of "spurious correlation".

musher0 · #20 Post by **musher0** » Sat 04 Jan 2020, 05:32

s243a wrote:
musher0 wrote:Well, then, if hockey sticks can't be produced, Canadians won't participate.
(Context: hockey is our national sport.)
Does that mean we have Michael Mann to blame for Stephan Dion naming his dog Kyoto and promising so much at the climate accords?

You Canadian?

You're better informed than I am!

Who is Michael Mann? And Stéphane Dion was never PM of Canada (luckily).

However, of interest to Puppyists, Canada has produced a professional hockey player
by the name of Mike Amadio, namesake of our Puppy-in-Chief!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Amadio

He shoots, he scores!

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

AGW is relative

AGW is relative