skierinvermont Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 The last decade has been very flat. Indeed it has.. I have been pointing out this fact since I joined EUS in 2006. I am simply correcting the factually incorrect claim by BethesdaWx that UAH shows a cooling trend since 2002. It's a fairly straightforward fact, and I see no reason we why can't get simple facts like this correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Indeed it has.. I have been pointing out this fact since I joined EUS in 2006. I am simply correcting the factually incorrect claim by BethesdaWx that UAH shows a cooling trend since 2002. It's a fairly straightforward fact, and I see no reason we why can't get simple facts like this correct. Its there. Cooling from 2002-2009, El nino spike, now we have resumed the cooling with the JAN 2011 anom. Flatlining since 1997. No warming between 1979 and 1995. Then comes the "step" up with the +AMO, then we begin flatlining, then declining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Of course, it always cools right after an El-Nino. Seems too much of a coincidence that the non-AGW factors with their ups and downs would somehow conspire to create a net upward excursion over the past century. AGW seems like a more simpler and more likely explanation - recall Occam's razor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Your post is statisitcally inapplicable. How about we use proper basepoints....JAN 2002-JAN 2011, how about that? Cooling Trend at over -0.1C per decade.....See what you can do with statistics? Lets be more rational...2002-2011 as a whole has been cooling very slightly, 2010 El Nino spike not included in the overall trend. We're about to go uber cold in FEB, shaping up to be one of the coldest in the satellite era... Not sure why you are using single months as basepoints....kinda shows deperation. The absolute most recent available is Jan 2002 to Dec 2010. The graph is below. The trend is +.07C/decade NOT -.1C/decade. You are just wrong and making things up. One more month of data is not going to change an 8 year linear trend significantly. Again another straightforward very simple fact that you can't get correct. The linear trend since 2002 on UAH is +.07C/decade NOT -.1C/decade. BIG difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Of course, it always cools right after an El-Nino. Seems too much of a coincidence that the non-AGW factors with their ups and downs would somehow conspire to create a net upward excursion over the past century. AGW seems like a more simpler and more likely explanation - recall Occam's razor. Its the Sun, and the magnetic field changes which started in the 19th century. Well, thats my hypothesis....yours is CO2 and other human activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 The absolute most recent available is Jan 2002 to Dec 2010. The graph is below. The trend is +.07C/decade NOT -.1C/decade. You are just wrong and making things up. One more month of data is not going to change an 8 year linear trend significantly. Again another straightforward very simple fact that you can't get correct. The linear trend since 2002 on UAH is +.07C/decade NOT -.1C/decade. BIG difference. Its January...try posting an updated version of the map. El Nino is an anomaly, just as La Nina is. Notice that the start and finish of the spike is right around the "normal" (0) line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Its January...try posting an updated version of the map. El Nino is an anomaly, just as La Nina is. Notice that the start and finish of the spike is right around the "normal" (0) line. I will post it in a few days when it comes out. 1 more month is not going to change an 8 year linear trend of +.07C/decade. It might decrease it to +.06C/decade. Regardless, your assertion that the trend is -.1C/decade since 2002 is completely incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Its the Sun, and the magnetic field changes which started in the 19th century. Well, thats my hypothesis....yours is CO2 and other human activities. Funny though that the CO2 radiation imbalance is directly observable, while the solar radiation and activity has been fairly steady over the past few decades. That's what the "OBS" are telling me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I will post it in a few days when it comes out. 1 more month is not going to change an 8 year linear trend of +.07C/decade. It might decrease it to +.06C/decade. Regardless, your assertion that the trend is -.1C/decade since 2002 is completely incorrect. Its simple sh*t dude. There is no trend on UAH, just the "step" that we'd expect. This will be the 1st "step" down. 2002-2009, interrupted by El Nino in 2010, then we resume. 1998, we can forget about even coming close to that one within the next 30-40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Funny though that the CO2 radiation imbalance is directly observable, while the solar radiation and activity has been fairly steady over the past few decades. That's what the "OBS" are telling me. Co2 and its forcings/properties....and the end result in the atmosphere, are two different things and cannot me meshed together. The latter, we can only hypothesize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Its simple sh*t dude. Unfortunately arbitrary lines drawn on a graph are not the same thing as trendlines. My graph is a linear trend, yours is an arbitrary line which does not fit the corresponding data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Unfortunately arbitrary lines drawn on a graph are not the same thing as trendlines. My graph is a linear trend, yours is an arbitrary line which does not fit the corresponding data. It depends where the starting point is on your "trendline"... the overall theme is more important than exact #'s on exact months. Learn how to decipher things objectively. You can't say "oooh, JAN 2002-DEC 2010 shows warming, thus the trend is up". Instead, you need to look at the grand scheme. Your Graph was updated in NOV FYI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 It depends where the starting point is on your "trendline"... the overall theme is more important than exact #'s on exact months. Learn how to decipher things objectively. You can't say "oooh, JAN 2002-DEC 2010 shows warming, thus the trend is up". Instead, you need to look at the grand scheme. Your Graph was updated in NOV FYI. The starting points for our graphs are the same Jan 2002. This is when you said the trend is -.1C/decade. A linear regression analysis is a statistically valid way of calculating a trend.. drawing arbitrary lines which don't even look like they match the data is not a valid way to find a trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 My Edits. I have to correct the pros? Notice your starting point, and notice the updated anom (my circle). I could have drawn the line lower.....but obviously didn't, just for amusement. This doesn't even relate to the fact that the El Nino spike is a blip in a long term cooling cycle that has barely begun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I could have drawn the line lower.....but obviously didn't, just for amusement. A trendline is calculated. It isn't drawn. FWIW, when it is calculated from January 2002 through December 2010 against the UAH dataset, the trendline is still positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 A trendline is calculated. It isn't drawn. FWIW, when it is calculated from January 2002 through December 2011 against the UAH dataset, the trendline is still positive. December 2011? Do you have a time traveling machine, Don? Maybe that's how you've gotten all these predictions right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I'm going to have to go with Bethesda on this one. Oops... See below. RSS, slight negative from Jan 2002 to Jan 2011. UAH Slight Positive Jan 2002 to Jan 2011. RSS Dataset Global Land and Ocean TLT (Temp Lower Troposphere) -70(S) to 82.5(N) January 2002 to January 2011 ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/m...ocean_v03_3.txt Using the "SLOPE(X:Y)" function in OpenOffice V. 3.3 I got a linear regression with a slope of -0.0002323232 (january to january) per month, or -0.0002323232°C per month, or -0.027878784°C per decade. Using the "INTERCEPT(X:Y)" function, I got an intercept of 0.2824812344°C (Calculated Anomaly January 2002). With the linear regression, this leads to an anomaly of 0.2573903288°C (Calculated Anomaly January 2011) If you wish to skip January 2002... and calculate it on February 2002 to January 2011, it is still negative. -0.0001931131°C per month, -0.0231735688°C per decade. I would caution those who wish to interpolate into the future to take care when making up data. We had a strong La Niña in 2008 (cooling), followed by a strong El Niño in 2010 (warming), followed by a strong La Niña in late 2010/early 2011 (cooling). We have no way to know for sure when the current La Niña current will end. Sometimes they will last only 1 month. From 1970 to mid 1976, we had 6 years of La Niña currents, and 1 year of El Niño currents. From 1990 to 1998, we had 7 years of strong El Niño currents, and 2 years of weak La Niña currents (and what do you know, it was warm). As mentioned earlier... before being pressed to come up with a number... The period from 2002 to 2011 has been very flat. We have changing ocean currents (as always). Changing Solar Activity (heading towards the lowest solar activity in a century, perhaps a couple of centuries). CO2? If you differ on the trends... You are welcome to post CALCULATED data, not "eyeball" graphs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Oh I used the UAH Dataset: http://vortex.nsstc....t/tltglhmam_5.4 "Global" It was missing the January 2011 point. So, I used the -0.009 posted here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ That gave me the POSITIVE slope of: 0.0004470299°C per month, 0.0536435919°C per decade and intercept of 0.1587411176 °C (Anomaly January 2002). So... Everyone was talking about the UAH Data. So, with RSS Data we get a very slight negative slope. -0.0002323232°C per month, or -0.027878784°C per decade. With UAH data, we get a very slight positive: 0.0004470299°C per month, 0.0536435919°C per decade It looks like the UAH positive is about double the RSS negative. And UAH wins out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Clifford, the graph I posted earlier was calculated using a linear regression. Your first result of very slight negative on RSS is still nowhere close to Bethesda's erroneously claim of -.1C/decade, and moreover the data source in question was UAH. Over the long run RSS has a warmer trend than UAH, but over the last 8 years I guess UAH has been catching up very slightly. I hope you did not mean we are biased for using UAH, since UAH actually runs the coldest of every source in the long run. However, neither RSS nor UAH is the best source to use for satellite derived tropospheric temperature trends. Both data sources, especially UAH are biased cold for a number of reasons. Please see my post in the following link which cites the most recent analyses of satellite temperature data: http://www.americanw...w/page__st__100 post #108 RSS and especially UAH are biased cold for a number of reasons documented in my post and the references I cited. They contain 10-15% stratospheric contamination, calibration errors, and other problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I was using skiers method of Month to Month One point on the data may not reflect 2 next to it, or 3 along....etc. FYI skier, its UAH/RSS trends that matter, not the actual anomaly. A difference in less than 0.1C doesn't matter in the least bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I was using skiers method of Month to Month One point on the data may not reflect 2 next to it, or 3 along....etc. I was using a linear regression, as was Clifford and Don. You were the only one eyeballing it and drawing lines. Regardless, the trend on UAH since 2002 is +.054C/decade NOT -.1C/decade as you erroneously claimed. Three people (Myself, Don, and Clifford) have all done the analysis and all come up with +.054C/decade through January 2011 (~.07C through Dec 2010). You are the only one getting -.1C/decade). This is also the second time in the last month you have erroneously claimed that the trend was -.1C/decade since 2002, and the second time I have performed a linear regression showing that the actual trend is positive. Basically this is the second time we have been through this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 huh? I've always counted the 2010 El Nino an an anomaly in the long term trend, because thats what it is. Cooling from 2002-2009. El Nino temporarily reverses the trend, but it will go back negative within a matter of a few months. Basically, knowing the trend will go negative again, no point it claiming it.....there is no point in counting the El Nino spike.....in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 FYI you were incorrect in saying UAH is +.07C/decade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 huh? I've always counted the 2010 El Nino an an anomaly in the long term trend, because thats what it is. Cooling from 2002-2009. El Nino temporarily reverses the trend, but it will go back negative within a matter of a few months. Basically, knowing the trend will go negative again, no point it claiming it.....there is no point in counting the El Nino spike.....in my eyes. This is not what you claimed originally. Originally you claimed the trend 2002-jan 2011 was over -.1C/decade. See the quote of you below. This is simply and plainly erroneous. If you wanted to make a point about 2002-2009 excluding the El Nino, then that's what you should have said. A word of advice, admitting when you are wrong can go a long way towards giving yourself some credibility. Well if you are going to leave out the 2010 El Nino spike, I am going to leave out the spike in 2002 due to the moderate El Nino then as well. The fact is that 2002 is the only starting point for which trends are even close to zero. If you start in 1998 (or anything prior to 1998), 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006 the trends are all positive for RSS. The only start year for which the trend is negative is 2002. Below is a graph showing linear trends from 1998 (yes! even 1998!), 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 to present. As you can see, 2002, the purple line, is the only one with a negative slope. Selective start points FTW! How about we use proper basepoints....JAN 2002-JAN 2011, how about that? Cooling Trend at over -0.1C per decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 FYI you were incorrect in saying UAH is +.07C/decade No I was not, I said for Jan 2002 through Dec 2010 and specifically noted that adding one more month of data would decrease it very slightly. This accounts for the discrepancy between my .07C/decade and Clifford's .054C/decade of a mere .016C/decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Skier, if you read my posts , you'd know when referring to the El Nino 2010 spike, I've ALWAYS counted it as an anomaly, since it is in the midst of a cooling trend. The trend will be down once again in a matter of months. I have a large tree I need to cut today, I won't be on probably until afternoon....so you can free-willidly bash me until then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 December 2011? Do you have a time traveling machine, Don? Maybe that's how you've gotten all these predictions right! Sadly, it was just a typo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I've always counted the 2010 El Nino an an anomaly in the long term trend, because thats what it is. Cooling from 2002-2009. El Nino temporarily reverses the trend, but it will go back negative within a matter of a few months. You can not include the La Niña years while not including the El Niño years. I did a quick calculation. Taking my trendlines that I had calculated. Difference between trendline and temperature in the two databases, RSS, UAH. Sum of differences (total positive/negative contribution) April 2007 to June 2009---- UAH -4.05 RSS -3.78 July 2009 to January 2011 UAH+2.82 RSS +2.74 Average (montly contribution) April 2007 to June 2009---- UAH -0.150 RSS -0.145 July 2009 to January 2011 UAH+0.149 RSS +0.144 I suppose I could have snubbed it off somewhere in November/December 2010. But, anyway... What this indicates is that the contribution of the + El Niño is no greater than the contribution of the - La Niña. In fact chopping off those last two months (dec 2010, jan 2011) gives a slight higher monthly contribution from the El Niño, but still a negative overall contribution from the earlier La Niña. (note, of course, my trendlines have a slight upward or downward slope depending on the DB. However, it is good enough for this demo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 One other thing to consider... We've been looking at the top few feet of a very deep and very dynamic heat-sink, the Oceans. In fact, perhaps I've been thinking of things backwards. Perhaps one should think of an El Niño year as a cold year... and a La Niña year as a hot year... Ok... So if we think of warming as blocking the radiation of heat away from the earth, and cooling as more radiation of heat from space. Then, an El Niño year would be the years that bring ocean heat to the ocean surfaces, and thus radiate more heat away from the oceans. La Niña years would be the years that block the oceans from radiating heat. So... One needs to not only look at the top couple of feet of the oceans, but one should look at the whole oceans that are a couple of miles deep. Anyway, I found two somewhat recent studies that were using two separate methods to measure the ocean temperatures. Unfortunately these data are very short-term data. Sea level budget over 2003–2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo A. Cazenave Global and Planetary Change 65 (2009) 83–88 http://etienne.berth...al_GPC_2009.pdf COOLING OF THE GLOBAL OCEAN SINCE 2003 Craig Loehle, Ph.D. Energy & Environment · Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 2009 http://www.ncasi.org...il.aspx?id=3152 The first Cazenave study tries to estimate the global ocean temperature by subtracting out the volume change attributed to glacier melt, and calculate a temperature change based on a thermal expansion coefficient. The second study, Loehle, uses ARGO buoy direct temperature data. It shows a high seasonal shift (it is supposed to be a global dataset). It uses data from the surface down to 900m (so it is influenced by the surface temperatures, what I was hoping to avoid). So, unfortunately both datasets are short, and both terminate during the 2008 La Niña year. They both conclude a slight mid-decade cooling trend in the ocean, more weighted by their start to endpoint selection. Looking at the minimums in the Cazenave study, I'm concluding that there wasn't much change. They also both cite references of warming from the 90's. What I was hoping to find was evidence that El Niño years were radiating more heat than La Niña years... At least the Loehle study is weighted by ocean surface temperatures, and thus seems to trend downward with the La Niña years. The Cazenave study may also be trending with the La Niña years. I may break out a new topic later... after I find some more data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 No I was not, I said for Jan 2002 through Dec 2010 and specifically noted that adding one more month of data would decrease it very slightly. This accounts for the discrepancy between my .07C/decade and Clifford's .054C/decade of a mere .016C/decade. Mere? I thought the .02C/decade divergence between UAH and RSS is significant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.