no global warming for 18 years and 2 months
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
This plot is terrible.
1) Climate change affects the temperature on a yearly scale (or even decades). On a plot that shows monthly temperatures (what this plot seems to show) the effect is smeared by temperature fluctuations and it's a lot harder to see. That's why you see the huge up and downs in the plot.
2) The plot shows the mean (over what period, a month?) and doesn't show the temperature variation.
The effect on climate change has been observed over the decades. See Figure 6 in http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/high-low-temps.html. It shows that, since the 1950s, there seems to be something to drive the temperatures up.
1) Climate change affects the temperature on a yearly scale (or even decades). On a plot that shows monthly temperatures (what this plot seems to show) the effect is smeared by temperature fluctuations and it's a lot harder to see. That's why you see the huge up and downs in the plot.
2) The plot shows the mean (over what period, a month?) and doesn't show the temperature variation.
The effect on climate change has been observed over the decades. See Figure 6 in http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/high-low-temps.html. It shows that, since the 1950s, there seems to be something to drive the temperatures up.
https://news.vice.com/article/antar...e-sea-level-rise-to-the-us-than-anywhere-else
can;t wait till Florida and Louisiana and Jersey are gone?
Even with the data in the plot, it is almost impossible for the trend line to be a straight line. They're doing something wrong / misleading.
That's why they call it a "line",...
Trend lines are straight,...I'm NOT saying that the trend line in the plot is right or wrong,...it could be either.
Unless some one can prove one way or another.
FAST
It could have a slope. What surprised me is that it's an exact horizontal line. They could just only included the right amount of data (e.g. for 18 years and 2 months so that the line is horizontal, another way of saying this is that they adjusted the data so they get what they wanted....), which says nothing about what happens if 20 years, 30, or even 10 years of data are used instead.
Have to say I am a bit surprised by the horizontal trend line,...either they picked a period that worked for them,...or its a lie,...and I'm saying this even though I'm not convinced we know what is going on,...or what is causing the so called weather change.
FAST
I do not think the graph represents real data, it is just an illustration of what the author is trying to say. Like in movies where hackers are hacking into a computer, you know the hackers are successful when the skull and crossbone flash on the monitor. This type of creative data plotting is pretty much the standard in climate science.
Is that graph for real? Why is the correlation coefficient zero? Or, what does that r-squared supposed to represent? What is wrong with that graph? Usually, the closer to 1, the better the fit between the correlation and the data. Unless, the authors meant Residual Sum of Sqares, in which case 0.000 is a nearly perfect correlation.
You might want to look into the facts.
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
p.s. The source for the claim is the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a British policy group that has refused several Freedom of information requests to reveal who is funding it. Wikipedia lists their academic advisory group that is made up of a lot of economists, a few journalists and the like. The scientists on the council seem to be experts in fields such as paleontology, quantum mechanics, mining, virus vectors, electrical engineering,... In fact it seems only 2 of the listed academics have any connection to climate science.
As for the graph, actually looking at the values listing on the y-axis, you find that the variable is temperature anomaly. That means pretty much the entire time shown on the graph is above the average temperature.
As for the graph, actually looking at the values listing on the y-axis, you find that the variable is temperature anomaly. That means pretty much the entire time shown on the graph is above the average temperature.
Except that it isn't actually a horizontal line. If you read the graph, it has a slight downward slope.
The only sources showing a global warming trend over the last 18 years plus are sources which have tampered with historical data to "cool" the past (or have used such "adjusted" data).
It can't be sum of squares - it would be huge by just looking at the plot. These guys really have no idea what they're doing...
YA,...I realize that the trend was very slightly down,...but insignificant.
Waiting for the pro warming "believers" to chime in here,...should be interesting,...:biggrin1:
FAST
