What Do We Think About Climate Change

so you are admitting a rising trend in temp anomalies

rather than the false descending trend you seem to insist upon in your previous posts

 

I'll tell you what Guillermo. Go to this website:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html

Look at the heading "Annual global averages".

Click on the item "annual data".

This will download the Hadcrut3 file.

Open the file.

The first two columns are the relevant columns.

Cut and past the 1998-2009 data into your favorite plotting/curve fitting program.

Run a linear regression on the data.

See if the slope is positive or negative.

For reference, here is the 1998-2009 data from the download:

1998 0.517
1999 0.263
2000 0.239
2001 0.399
2002 0.456
2003 0.459
2004 0.431
2005 0.474
2006 0.427
2007 0.402
2008 0.312
2009 0.444

The first column is the year. The second column is the temperature defect.

 

Guillermo,

Go back to the woodfortrees.org website. Put in the numbers you did for the figures you posted (1998 to 2009) and generate a plot of the data. Then click on the link that says "raw data". You will find that when you enter 1998 to 2009 in the boxes it only generates data through the end of 2008, not 2009. This seems to be a quirk (call it a bug if you want) in the way the woodfortrees website is set up. If you want to include all data through the end of 2009 then you have to enter 1998 as the start point and 2010 as the end point. (Be aware, that if you enter 2010 as the end point you do not get any of the 2010 data, you only get data through the end of 2009.)

Do that and you will have the correct data set through the end of 2009. Then you can do the linear regression on that data and you will see that there is a slightly positive slope.

 

Please Troy, if this happened in the 1800 what was the cause then? Cold weather right? So now that we have warmer weather, the cause is... Global warming?
You must be kidding. If lack of snow cover is the likely cause, than say it is the lack of snow. How could this happen during a little ice age? Lack of snowfall? The whole thing is a big load of bulls**t and the most likely cause is a number of climatic events that have absolutely nothing to do with AGW. We have already the same mob trying to pin the collapse of the Perito Moreno onto AGW, only to be told that it has been happening for hundreds of years in a very predictable manner.

AGW included as a compulsory item in the climate, glaciers, sea level and related paraphernalia is like the speed factor in accidents in Australia. World wide statistics show that speed is the direct cause of 5% of accidents. First cause is fatigue, followed by drugs, alcohol, mobile phone usage, poor driver skills, poor knowledge of road rules, and last speed. THat is why different countries are ripping off fixed speed cameras.
However and because of the high revenue from speed cameras that is already forecasted in state budgets, the police computer report system does not allow the policeman to finalise a report unless he has ticked the speed box together with the real reason. This way the speed cameras stay in place and the money keeps coming.

Anyone that works for any climate bla bla mob is BOUND, DEEMED, FORCED, OBLIGATED, if he wants to keep his job, to convert to the warmist religion and place the words man made global warming or words to the same effect in anything written, spoken, hinted, or implied to. That is the way to keep the money coming and this article is a blatant proof of it.

 

A lot

 

By the way, if you do a regression on the monthly data the slope is different from a regression on the yearly averaged data. I do not know which approach is more valid, fitting to the monthly or to the yearly data.

One more thing. If you include the most current data, including the first few months of 2010 (by specifying and end date of 2011 at the woodfortrees website) the regression line is more strongly positive than if you just go to the end of 2009 because of a strong upward bump in the 2010 temperatures, though the slope is positive in either case.

If you only go through the end of 2008, which is not the most recent data, or even the most recent full year data, then you will get a negative slope, which is what you did Guillermo.

 

I really don't see the relationship or analogy between global warming and speed limits in Australia, but perhaps I am just too literal minded to pick up on such subtleties.

 

In short it is called keep the ******** going, to keep the money rolling.
It is simple really not subtle at all.

 

There's more money to be made by siding with big oil, and you don't even need to be a real scientist either.

 

There is an important concept that needs to not be missed. A temporary downturn of a decade or so is not really very significant. For example, from the years 1940-1956 there was a rather abrupt downturn in the global temperature, but it turned out to be a mere blip in a long term (century time scale) generally upward trend. (See attached graph using the HadCRUT3 data set.)

 

From your "there is more money to be made by siding etc" I take you have details of this. Can you kindly point me in the right direction? I am very interested in making money in the way you suggest, Do you know anyone I can contact?

Meanwhile you can tell me how much is "more money" and how does it compare to the opposite side. The side of those who's livelihood depends from government grants that require Global Warming to be paraded in order to justify Carbon price and Carbon taxes and Emission trading etc.?

What is the ratio between dollars spent via grants to support the myth of AGW using TAX PAYERS MONEY, as opposed to money spent from private companies who need to defend themselves from Green ******** artist? A million to one? 100,000 to one?

 

...governments spend money like a drunken woman, business has to make money to be able to spend it, governments do not actually have any money at all, they simply spend other peoples money.

 

Nah, it's more along the lines of an off the cuff remark, except for the part about not even needing to be a real scientist, or perhaps I should say a scientist who knowledgeable and skilled in the field.

By the way, did you see my post about the guy who used to work at the think tank? By his own account he was paid big money to promote an anti-global warming agenda when he worked at the think tank, and by his own account he did not have to bother much with the science either.

 

Endpoints on WoodForTrees

Hi Folks,

Guillermo pointed me at this discussion - interesting it should be here because with another hat on entirely I often read threads here about, you know, boat design

Alan is right, but I would claim it's a feature, not a bug! WFT is all about monthly data, and uses decimal years to specify end-points, so when you say "to:2009" you mean "to January 2009". For other good reasons it uses a half-closed interval, leaving off the end sample - so, for example, if you do "from:2000/to:2010" you get the 120 months you would expect for a ten-year interval (this is the common usage, if you think about it).

But what I would say to all of you is that if you're arguing about trends which matter whether you include a single year or not, you might want to think about the statistical significance of the results! It's generally accepted that 30 years is the minimum time you can talk about climate trends - see http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#trends for details.

Best wishes

Paul
http://www.woodfortrees.org

 

Perfect? I demand you retract that!