They're being displaced by climate change?
Oh, I forgot, global warming causes George W. Bush and ISIS. How could I have forgotten?
Global warming causes everything bad.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
What's the scientific evidence for climate change?
- Thread starter BrianNole09
- Start date
They're being displaced by climate change?
Oh, I forgot, global warming causes George W. Bush and ISIS. How could I have forgotten?
Global warming causes everything bad.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
You are correct, I was wrong... I was meaning to imply you can also use the bars in reference to a level of certainty/confidence (95%) for example.
Have we FINALLY figured this out?You are correct, I was wrong... I was meaning to imply you can also use the bars in reference to a level of certainty/confidence (95%) for example.
The ERROR BARS for 500-1500 years ago extended UP TO (perhaps) +0.6°C, EVEN THOUGH THE MOST LIKELY range is much lower. Up until around the year 2000, maximum temperatures were only +0.6°C against the same reference benchmark. THUS, they COULD NOT say with 95% confidence that recent 20th century temperatures were the warmest in 2000 years. That was as of about 1995-2003 (PRIOR to your reference being published).
TODAY, we have had temperatures GREATER THAN +0.6°C, reaching +0.7°C or +0.8°C. THAT WAS NOT THE CASE when your reference was published. IT IS THE CASE NOW, and when the PAGES2K work was completed. PAGES2K added in more data, made more comprehensive analysis AND they were comparing AGAINST A DIFFERENT 21st CENTURY BENCHMARK.
15 years ago, it was unlikely they could make the claim. Today it is fairly easy, particularly since temperature are so much warmer is such a small timeframe.
We don't have a GLOBAL temperature for the last 500-2000 years... we've been told ad nauseum that regional differences in temperature are "weather" and not reflective of "climate".
You see? Africa isn't even represented... How it it possible it say that the "Global Temperature" has been anything other that an estimation in the time frame before direct observed and recorded data?? i.e 136 years.......
If you broke down the last 2000 years and compressed it to a one year timeline... you can't determine the overall daily temperature of your house when you have no records for the upstairs bedroom until December 5th (Africa), You don't have any records for the living room before June (Asia) or any before July for the 2nd and 3rd bedrooms (Australasia and South America)???
Now the way that I look at it, I see a bunch of reds and oranges on the left side of the above graph. It's possible that the gray areas would confirm the relative "hotness" of that time (1-1000 on the graph) OR it is possible that those areas could have been more blue thereby making the current situation even more dire. We just don't know. Therefore we are making statements and declarations with incomplete data,
But the last 25 years, in the above 1 year timeline, is Dec 28th, 29th, 30th and 31st... 4 days...
I have come to the understanding that I am never going to change your mind... you must come to the same conclusion, that you are never going to change mine...
Last edited:
We don't have a GLOBAL temperature for the last 500-2000 years... we've been told ad nauseum that regional differences in temperature are "weather" and not reflective of "climate".
You see? Africa isn't even represented... How it it possible it say that the "Global Temperature" has been anything other that an estimation in the time frame before direct observed and recorded data?? i.e 136 years.......
If you broke down the last 2000 years and compressed it to a one year timeline... you can't determine the overall daily temperature of your house when you have no records for the upstairs bedroom until December 5th (Africa), You don't have any records for the living room before June (Asia) or any before July for the 2nd and 3rd bedrooms (Australasia and South America)???
Now the way that I look at it, I see a bunch of reds and oranges on the left side of the above graph. It's possible that the gray areas would confirm the relative "hotness" of that time (1-1000 on the graph) OR it is possible that those areas could have been more blue thereby making the current situation even more dire. We just don't know. Therefore we are making statements and declarations with incomplete data,
But the last 25 years, in the above 1 year timeline, is Dec 28th, 29th, 30th and 31st... 4 days...
I have come to the understanding that I am never going to change your mind... you must come to the same conclusion, that you are never going to change mine...
You'll never change your opinion because you refuse to understand the science.
Of COURSE they don't get 100% coverage: THAT IS WHY THE ERROR BARS ARE LARGER!!!
In your house example, you just INCREASE THE ERROR estimations. You look at the trends in your linked graph, and you can see they all trend similarly: not in lockstep, but if you can see those trends/associations visually, then it's far easier to trend them using actual math.
A better representation (where you can SEE the small European MWP and LIA are NOT global events) is also visible:
If you have 80% to 90% coverage, you CAN get decent data from it; just because there are gaps doesn't make it useless data (but apparently you seem to think so). And you STILL have not admitted that temperatures of the past 10 years being 0.2°C higher have pushed the present day temps ABOVE the error bars. If you cannot accept simple scientific facts, then stop wasting people's time here. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE SCIENCE, NOT YOUR 'VERSION' OF IT. If you don't like the data the PAGES2K group put together, then SEND THE QUESTIONS TO THEM. I strongly doubt you will understand a single paragraph of what you get back...
If you have a math degree, I cannot fathom how you never learned anything about error bars and error ranges in any form of statistics. You must have skipped that semester, done too much weed, or simply been a very mediocre student.
You'll never change your opinion because you refuse to understand the science.
Of COURSE they don't get 100% coverage: THAT IS WHY THE ERROR BARS ARE LARGER!!!
In your house example, you just INCREASE THE ERROR estimations. You look at the trends in your linked graph, and you can see they all trend similarly: not in lockstep, but if you can see those trends/associations visually, then it's far easier to trend them using actual math.
A better representation (where you can SEE the small European MWP and LIA are NOT global events) is also visible:
If you have 80% to 90% coverage, you CAN get decent data from it; just because there are gaps doesn't make it useless data (but apparently you seem to think so). And you STILL have not admitted that temperatures of the past 10 years being 0.2°C higher have pushed the present day temps ABOVE the error bars. If you cannot accept simple scientific facts, then stop wasting people's time here. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE SCIENCE, NOT YOUR 'VERSION' OF IT. If you don't like the data the PAGES2K group put together, then SEND THE QUESTIONS TO THEM. I strongly doubt you will understand a single paragraph of what you get back...
If you have a math degree, I cannot fathom how you never learned anything about error bars and error ranges in any form of statistics. You must have skipped that semester, done too much weed, or simply been a very mediocre student.
I see in your nice new pretty graph it only goes back 1000 years... I suspect you will soon change your "hottest in the last 2000 years" declaration will be downgraded down to one, after you realized your "in the last 10,000 year" statement was bullshit earlier in the thread.
Only a fool could look at my graph (that I got from the PAGES 2K website, BTW) and with a straight face say that prior to 1000 years ago we had 80-90% coverage. It is actually laughable.
As far as error bars... I admit freely that I don't remember them. Maybe they called them something different back then, maybe my teachers didn't teach properly or AGAIN maybe I have just forgotten...I have a very clear understanding of standard deviation and standard error. You have to remember that when I graduated 23 years ago (Early 90s) computers were much less powerful. Excel had just a few years earlier been launched and it was expensive. There were no laptops then. Hell I never had a cellphone until 1994 or 95. Statistics was a very small portion of the math curriculum and I do remember it being a very hard class with a high failure rate.
But I see you still can't help yourself and continue to insult others perceived intelligence.
You're seriously complaining about my critical comments on your intelligence on this topic, and you had to have 'error bars' explained to you?
Go read the actual papers; I simply put graphs up to demonstrate the point on error bars. I hope we were able to teach you something new, that you probably should have learned long ago IF you actually really did learn any math...
Here are some better graphs for you. Not sure why I'm wasting my time with you anymore, because you seem incapable of understanding even some of the most basic points here. But, have at it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/
It's true as I understand it. The Rs sent out a memo to start using the other name as it polled better. But there isn't a shift in anything but political marketing terms. They mean different things and both are in use in the scientific community to describe the respective circumstance.
Too hot? Global Warming.
Too cold? Climate Change.
Too dry? Global Warming.
Too wet? Climate Change.
Too calm? Global Warming.
Too stormy? Climate Change.
Plants and wildlife not doing so well? Global Warming.
Plants and wildlife doing better than expected? Climate Change.
Whatever happens, it's either global warming or climate change.
Sort of, GW is fueling climate change, not all of which is simply heigher temperatures.
They aren't the same thing, you know. Trad doesn't get that...no matter how many times it's explained to him. Don't be like Trad.
Scientists have distinguished between global warming and climate change since the 1950's. It's nothing new.
It seems like we only hear about climate change now. Is it a bigger problem?
The atmosphere is warming. More energy in the atmosphere is changing the climate world-wide. GW is a cause - climate change is an effect. There is no "one is a bigger problem".
LOL...What the hell does that have to with anything? Of all of your inane, idiotic "arguments", that has to be the absolute dumbest. There have been forest fires for as long as there have been forests. Does that mean humans can't burn a forest down, you dimwitted boob? Smokey the Bear was wrong? We CAN'T prevent forest fires?
"F' You Smokey the Bear!! Not a thing WE can do! There have ALWAYS been forest fires!!"
-Trad the Boob
