Recommended Posts

Here is an interesting link regarding 'climate change' and the 'cherry picking' of data. Keep in mind that this was written on 9 May 2019 and it never made it into the press as far as I can tell. This is not 'climate change denying', this is looking at the results of various databases.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/nasa-latest-data-global-warming/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Here is an interesting link regarding 'climate change' and the 'cherry picking' of data.

11 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Here is an interesting link regarding 'climate change' and the 'cherry picking' of data. Keep in mind that this was written on 9 May 2019 and it never made it into the press as far as I can tell. This is not 'climate change denying', this is looking at the results of various databases.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/nasa-latest-data-global-warming/

So... the high is 0.24C/decade (the one you are complaining about) the low is 0.17C/decade (the one you like) and the median of the results is 0.20C/decade. Smack in between. 

This spread just looks like noisy data to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Here is an interesting link regarding 'climate change' and the 'cherry picking' of data. Keep in mind that this was written on 9 May 2019 and it never made it into the press as far as I can tell. This is not 'climate change denying', this is looking at the results of various databases.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/nasa-latest-data-global-warming/

Note this point.. "One of the co-authors is NASA’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt, keeper of the world’s most widely used dataset on global warming."

I was under the distinct impression that Hadley, listed in the article, was the most widely used. Its certainly the one I seen used most often.. and it is generally accepted that the world has been warming at a rate of between 0.1 and 0.2 degrees per decade since the 90s. The American Meteorological Organisation, which has long been gooey-eyed green makes this  statement Global surface temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.8°C (1.4°F) per century over the period 1901–2017, and 1.9°C (3.4°F) per century during 1979–2017.    Note that doesn't mean the world has warmed by 1.9 but at a rate that implies 1.9 if continued over a century. The Hadley data puts the warming at 0.17 degrees per decade since 1990. (The satellite data which Schmidt hates puts it much lower, although it is of the upper atmosphere). Also note that this says nothing about why the world might have warmed. Although the AMS is certain its all due to human influence, climate is always changing. The only way to be sure is to make a forecast and then see if the forecast is correct.. As the AMS carefully avoids mentioning, the figure they give is below the bottom end of all IPCC forecasts..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My intention was to highlight the cherry picking of data, I did not intend to highlight the actual numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

My intention was to highlight the cherry picking of data, I did not intend to highlight the actual numbers.

Sometimes there is good reason to leave some data out.

For example in this case, the rate of change is changing.

Using a shorter block of time will make the data set more sensitive to any changes, while the standard time frames will suppress changes.

But the climate signals are noisy and a 15 year data set does not suppress that noise very well so is less reliable.

A 30 year data set will suppress noise better but can suppress recent trends as well making it more reliable but slower to uncover rapid changes.

This is the nature of the disagreement between the climate groups you discussed.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article seems to indicate that the scientific community had 'set' the standard at a 30 year data set, if there was a valid reason to ignore that it should have been given. If it is NOT mentioned it leads to the idea that the data is being ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The article seems to indicate that the scientific community had 'set' the standard at a 30 year data set, if there was a valid reason to ignore that it should have been given. If it is NOT mentioned it leads to the idea that the data is being ignored.

It was mentioned between themselves but it was left out of the article you referenced because it did not fit the slant the author wanted to give it.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.