Major analysis confirms global warming is real

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:40:29 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
He keeps asking the same question over and over, despite receiving
answers. That makes him an idiot. And if you don't see that, it
makes
you one as well.

No, I haven't received any answers.

That's because your newsreader conveniently drops the answers for you. Get
a better news reader!!!!

No, its pretty reliable normally.

In fact, I have received 11 posts which you have sent where you claim that
you provided answers, in fact the only post my newsreader appears to have
dropped is where you claim you actually did provide the answers.

Easily fixed, to refresh your memory:

1. Current warming rate.

2. Second fastest warming rate in recorded history, and when it occurred.

3. How these numbers were calculated.

Thanks in advance ...

.... and by the way, please make sure you include the answers with any
subsequent posts you might make in response, just to make sure I get them
please!


Peter Webb

On 24/11/2011 13:31, Peter Webb wrote:

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:40:29 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
He keeps asking the same question over and over, despite receiving
answers. That makes him an idiot. And if you don't see that, it
makes
you one as well.

No, I haven't received any answers.

That's because your newsreader conveniently drops the answers for you.
Get a better news reader!!!!

No, its pretty reliable normally.

So you admit to selective amnesia then when it suits you.

In fact, I have received 11 posts which you have sent where you claim
that you provided answers, in fact the only post my newsreader appears
to have dropped is where you claim you actually did provide the answers.

OK I will play this game from an unbiased best estimate.

You can reproduce my answers by applying an 11 year boxcar filter to
your global temperature dataset of choice. The newer ones go back a bit
further but since I have HADCRUT to hand I have used that.

The short term rate of increase can be higher, but I don't consider
anything over a timescale shorter than about 30 years reliable. Year to
year variations are huge and since I believe there is a solar cycle
influence so an 11 year boxcar average is an easy way to get a smoothed
curve with almost no solar cycle influence and fair degree of
interannual noise rejection. The results would not be much different
with any other choice of low pass filter with a similar passband.

Easily fixed, to refresh your memory:

1. Current warming rate.

About 1K / century and steadily increasing despite some cyclical
components that *should* be causing cooling at the moment.

2. Second fastest warming rate in recorded history, and when it occurred.

34 year monotonic run from 1969 to 2003 delta T 0.416 over 34y is
1.2K/century

Fastest was

29 year monotonic run from 1912 to 1941 delta T 0.44 over 29y is
1.5K/century

3. How these numbers were calculated.

Low pass boxcar filter on HADCRUT and visual inspection of the resulting
smooth curve. A better lowpass filter might change things slightly but
if you plot the original data and the smoothed version you will see that
I am being entirely fair in this analysis.

Incidentally I believe that a fair proportion of the steep rise seen in
both the events above are related to luna-solar tidal forces driving the
multidecadal oscillation with a pseudo periods of roughly 54 year and 58
years. It shows up most clearly in the PDO index (annoyingly their
server is on the blink) so here is a copy of it from Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg

Don't get all excited though there is still a relentless 1K/century when
the periodic terms are corrected out.

Thanks in advance ...

I fully expect that you will deny I have answered your questions.

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Peter Webb wrote:
And, no, it's not meaningful to ask if there was a warming in one specific
year, e.g. 1961. For such a small time interval you're talking about
weather, not climate. For climate you should consider time intervals ofb
at least several decades. So you could rephrase your question as e.g. "was
there abglobal warming 1960-1990?". The answer is obvious.

But its not obvious to me that this is at a higher rate than during the late
19th century.

So, what definition of global warming rate do you want to use? The
temperature increase over a 30 year period divided by 30 ? And what period
is "recorded history" in this context?

If we're looking at recorded history, let's use a hundred-year period
and a 2000-year temperature reconstruction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20...Comparison.png

0.8 degrees in a hundred years 1900-2000, which is comparable to what
one of the six or so reconstructions has for the Medieval Warm Period but
unprecedented in the other reconstructions.

This all turns into quite difficult questions about error models, for
most of which the statistics suggest that 'unprecedented' is also not
a meaningful question to ask.

Tom

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 24/11/2011 13:31, Peter Webb wrote:

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:40:29 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
He keeps asking the same question over and over, despite receiving
answers. That makes him an idiot. And if you don't see that, it
makes
you one as well.

No, I haven't received any answers.

That's because your newsreader conveniently drops the answers for you.
Get a better news reader!!!!

No, its pretty reliable normally.

So you admit to selective amnesia then when it suits you.

In fact, I have received 11 posts which you have sent where you claim
that you provided answers, in fact the only post my newsreader appears
to have dropped is where you claim you actually did provide the answers.

OK I will play this game from an unbiased best estimate.

You can reproduce my answers by applying an 11 year boxcar filter to your
global temperature dataset of choice. The newer ones go back a bit further
but since I have HADCRUT to hand I have used that.

The short term rate of increase can be higher, but I don't consider
anything over a timescale shorter than about 30 years reliable. Year to
year variations are huge and since I believe there is a solar cycle
influence so an 11 year boxcar average

Exactly what are you forming the boxcart average of? The temperature? In
which case, how do you turn this into a *rate* of warming? All you have is a
smoothed temperature curve.

is an easy way to get a smoothed
curve with almost no solar cycle influence and fair degree of interannual
noise rejection. The results would not be much different with any other
choice of low pass filter with a similar passband.


Yes. Now you have a smoothed graph of temperatures. Are you now suggesting
that you somehow form the slope of this curve? How do you this? By
subtracting the value in successive years? Because if that is what you are
doing, the boxcar smoothing is irelevant, as all except the first and last
boxcars are the same for both years and cancel out.

Easily fixed, to refresh your memory:

1. Current warming rate.

About 1K / century and steadily increasing despite some cyclical
components that *should* be causing cooling at the moment.

You could not possibly have calculated this using an 11 year boxcart
analysis, as such an analysis would require knowledge the temperature from
2011 to 2016.

I would gladly do a simple boxcar smoothing over an 11 an year timeframe,
but that just produces a smoothed version of the temperature curve, it does
not produce a rate. Not for now, and not for any time.

Perhaps if you showed us how you calculated the 1 degree per century? After
you did a 11 year boxcar smoothing, how did you calculate the warming rate?



2. Second fastest warming rate in recorded history, and when it occurred.

34 year monotonic run from 1969 to 2003 delta T 0.416 over 34y is
1.2K/century

Is this a different formula for warming rate, beased upon the difference in
tmperature 34 years apart?


Fastest was

29 year monotonic run from 1912 to 1941 delta T 0.44 over 29y is
1.5K/century

And here's another formula, which uses a different time base to measure
warming!



3. How these numbers were calculated.

Low pass boxcar filter on HADCRUT and visual inspection of the resulting
smooth curve.

Ohh, I see. Its not done by an objective algorithm, it involves a "visual
inspection of a resulting smooth curve".

In fact, all you have done is to describe how you want to smooth the data.
That produces a smoother curve of temperature over time. It still doesn't
define "warming rate". So you just fall back on a completely subjective
judgement.



A better lowpass filter might change things slightly but if you plot the
original data and the smoothed version you will see that I am being
entirely fair in this analysis.


No, you can smooth the data pretty much how you like, but that will only
produce a smoother looking curve.

If you think that making a smoother looking curve is a start, then go for
it. But even with a smoother looking graph, you still have to explain how
you calculate the warming rate.

For example, how did you calculate the current warming rate is 1K/century?
You took a boxcar average using an 11 year window to smooth the data through
to now, and then you did what to get 1K/century?


Incidentally I believe that a fair proportion of the steep rise seen in
both the events above are related to luna-solar tidal forces driving the
multidecadal oscillation with a pseudo periods of roughly 54 year and 58
years. It shows up most clearly in the PDO index (annoyingly their server
is on the blink) so here is a copy of it from Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg


I make no pretense of understanding what drives climate.


Don't get all excited though there is still a relentless 1K/century when
the periodic terms are corrected out.


Oh dear. Are you using a different definition again which requires certain
terms of period longer than 11 years to be eliminated when calculating
warming rates? None of this appeared in the above.


Thanks in advance ...

I fully expect that you will deny I have answered your questions.

Regards,
Martin Brown

You haven't provided a definition or way of calculating the warming rate.
You described how you smooth the data, but no suggestion of how you got from
smoothed data to calculating a warming rate.

You have not provided the calculation which led to your figure of 1 K per
century, or any justification of where it came from.

You quote two previous warming rates, but they use two different baseline
periods (34 years and 29 years) for calculation, and neither of these time
periods appear in your description of how you smooth data.

Not that it matters. It was warming faster from 1912 to 1941 than it is now
(according to you), so the current warming rate is not "unprecedented" at
all, in fact it appears quite normal.

"Thomas Womack" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Webb wrote:
And, no, it's not meaningful to ask if there was a warming in one
specific
year, e.g. 1961. For such a small time interval you're talking about
weather, not climate. For climate you should consider time intervals ofb
at least several decades. So you could rephrase your question as e.g.
"was
there abglobal warming 1960-1990?". The answer is obvious.

But its not obvious to me that this is at a higher rate than during the
late
19th century.

So, what definition of global warming rate do you want to use? The
temperature increase over a 30 year period divided by 30 ? And what period
is "recorded history" in this context?

If we're looking at recorded history, let's use a hundred-year period
and a 2000-year temperature reconstruction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20...Comparison.png

0.8 degrees in a hundred years 1900-2000, which is comparable to what
one of the six or so reconstructions has for the Medieval Warm Period but
unprecedented in the other reconstructions.

This all turns into quite difficult questions about error models, for
most of which the statistics suggest that 'unprecedented' is also not
a meaningful question to ask.

Tom



So if "global warming" is measured as the temperature difference over a 100
year period divided by 100, and recorded history is 2,000 years, the
statement that the current warming rate in unprecedented in recorded history
cannot be shown to be correct?

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:51:02 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

I heat my home in watts to keep the temperature constant, and I pay
for kilowatt hours. You can use megawatts, gigawatts, terawatts,
I don't mind. I'm trying to find out who is the clinical idiot.

You obviously don't understand even very basic units. That makes it
pretty hard to have any sort of technical discussion.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:13:25 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Well, actually it can't. The 5 year average from 2005 to 2010 shows no
almost warming.

You obviously don't understand the concept of boxcar averaging, or
you'd know that there is no 5-year average available for 2010- it is
not possible to compute one.

Decadal averages are most commonly used, and there will be no accurate
decadal average available for 2010 until 2015.

Just using an expression like "5 year average from 2005 to 2010"
demonstrates how poor your understanding of this subject actually is.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:51:02 -0000, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
| I heat my home in watts to keep the temperature constant, and I pay
| for kilowatt hours. You can use megawatts, gigawatts, terawatts,
| I don't mind. I'm trying to find out who is the clinical idiot.
|
| You obviously don't understand even very basic units.

Watts = volts * amps, I have an 800 watt microwave oven, it warms food
in minutes. That's very basic units.
I have a 30 watt light bulb in my desk lamp, operating at 12 volts, it warms
the air around it, I won't touch it because it would burn my skin, it is so
hot
it glows. I have a 3 kilowatt kettle, it boils water in minutes. Clearly
actual
temperature and quantity of heat are different animals. That's very basic
knowledge.

| That makes it
| pretty hard to have any sort of technical discussion.
|
I'm now quite satisfied as to who the clinical idiot is.
It certainly isn't me, I have demonstrated I know what basic units are.
It certainly isn't Webb, he only asked you a question. I've asked you
the same question and you can't answer it. You have demonstrated
you did not answer his question and lied that you did.
And if you don't see that, it makes you a ****ing imbecile.
While it may be difficult for you to admit you are a ****ing imbecile
(and a clinical idiot), you have certainly succeeded in proving it to
me, and I'm just a lurker. Certainly other fair jurors will reach the same
conclusion.
As you ARE an idiot in the clinical sense, you won't see that.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:15:06 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

Watts = volts * amps, I have an 800 watt microwave oven, it warms food
in minutes. That's very basic units.

Watts measure power- energy per unit time. A given amount of power
delivered to a medium may (but does not always) produce a change in
temperature of that medium- a change that depends on the physical
properties of the medium itself, and is different for different
mediums.

Your question,

"The rate at which the Earth is currently warming is ____ watts per
year"

is meaningless because you can't measure a rate of warming using units
of power per time. The units for warming will be something like
kelvins/year. Climate models consider energy balance- the rate that
energy enters the climate system (which can be expressed in watts) and
the rate it leaves the system. From this, the models attempt to
calculate the net impact on temperature over some time scale. The
global temperature is rising because even though the input energy is
not changing (significantly), the energy being radiated back to space
is dropping due to absorption by greenhouse gases.

If you want a question answered, you need to ask one that is
answerable! For instance, you can reasonably ask for the rate the
Earth is currently warming in degrees per year- values that are easily
found, and vary depending on the measurement conditions (primarily,
the choice of baseline and the boxcar average period- conditions that
will be clearly stated in all published research).

On Nov 24, 8:32*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:

If you want a question answered, you need to ask one that is
answerable! For instance, you can reasonably ask for the rate the
Earth is currently warming in degrees per year- values that are easily
found, and vary depending on the measurement conditions (primarily,
the choice of baseline and the boxcar average period- conditions that
will be clearly stated in all published research).

No sense in asking you do daily rotations keep in step with daily
temperature rises and fall even though there is a massive 14 degree C
difference at your location insofar as you don't believe daily
rotation keeps in step with these daily temperature fluctuations.Two
sticks in the ground,count the number of times the Sun returns and
allow that daily and orbital motions are separate so that humans
devised a system which formats 4 orbital circuits/4 years as 1461
rotations -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/5419384

So,published research from two and a half thousand years ago states
that there are 1461 days in 4 years backed up by most recent research
which indicates that these translate into near enough 1461 rotations
in 4 orbital circuits.

A question was asked in another forum why temperatures are at their
lowest after dawn instead of before dawn and the answer is obvious and
it all comes down to dynamics.Of course you can't answer the question
with the right ascension based 1465 rotations in 1461 days.