Tamino says: "Assuming global warming continues without slowing down, we would have expected this," with an accompanying graph that extrapolates the long-term trend from 1970.
Then he says: "This is what actually happened," with an accompanying graph clearly showing a long term trend-line from 1970-2015.
Ok. Two paragraphs in and you already have it wrong. Look again. No 1970-2015 trend was added at this time. He is not comparing trend lines. Only the data was added after "This is what actually happened,"
I think Nasa's Gavin Schmidt is better positioned to understand what Tamino has done than you are
I'm sure he is, but he is not describing Tamino's analysis. He is describing his own. That is plain as day for anyone who has read Tamino's analysis. Please do so!
It's too bad Tamino does not say explicitly what his graph represents.
You are daft. He says exactly what it represents. It is not difficult. Read it.
You are linking to a different site showing a different thing you dolt! I'm not talking about the realClimate analysis! Lord! I only linked the exact site that I'm referring to about a dozen times! Once more - here it is: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
You can read right? Please do and stop wasting my time.
Ah. I see your confusion. You don't really understand what Tamino did. He did not compare 1970-2000 with 1970-2015. No wonder you are confused. He compared 1970-2000 with 2000-2015. Just as you have shown in your first link above. So no, that's not a gotcha. That's exactly what he is doing. Now he has also shown what you would predict for 2000-2015 if the 1970-2000 trend had continued. Guess what he found? Recent warming is exactly in line with what we would expect if the 1970-2000 trend had continued to present day. This is really not that tricky. Please take a moment to read the link before you make your next post. What a waste of time! You are arguing from ignorance and for no good reason!
If the data showed an increased warming trend since 2000, Tamino's extrapolation trick is the one skeptics would be using to try to "prove" that global warming has "stayed about the same"
The method can be used to show whether the trend has stayed about the same regardless of whether the warming has increased or decreased over the most recent period. duh!
Questions end in question marks. Your statement was "I do find it hard to believe..." Whether or not you find something hard to believe is irrelevant. Also, you don't know what ad hominem means. Please look it up.
I thought you'd wrapped your head around statistical significance, but we can take a step back if you need to. So the trend since 2000 is possibly as high as 0.216C/decade. The trend from 1970-2000 is possibly as low as 0.106C/decade. So just looking at the trend won't help us know whether the recent trend is what we would expect if the pre-2000 trend had continued unabated. To know that we would have to look at whether the recent trend is what we would expect if the pre-2000 trend had continued unabated.. And yes, this could be done on any data set. (duh).
You still don't get it, but I think you're making progress. He is not measuring since 1970. He is predicting what values we should have seen after 2000 if the trend from 1970-2000 had continued past 2000. Guess what? We saw exactly the temperatures that we would have expected AFTER 2000 if the rate of warming had continued unabated:: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
2014 was the hottest year. That is what we measured. There are uncertainties with the measurement that mean some other year may in fact have been hotter, but that's not what we measured on GISS, NOAA, or JMS.
What I said: How can Tamino say "global warming has continued" from 2000 to present when Nasa's own data shows no statistically significant warming during that period?
because, as we JUST finished agreeing, "no statistically significant trend" does NOT mean "There is no trend." It just means "I have chosen a method that cannot answer this question." and since Tamino is clever (and not stuck), he has chosen another method that CAN answer the question.
Finally!. So you cannot say that there has been no warming. At most you can say "I don't know given the limited data set that I've selected". Luckily we have a greater data set and don't need to limit ourselves. If you wanted to know whether the record fast warming from the 70's to 2000 had continued, you could do this and find that IT HAS: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
They are not wrong. That is GISS since 2005. As much as 0.254C over the ten years at 2 sigma. So as you note above, if we cannot rule out 0.254C then we cannot say that warming was any less than 0.254. It would not be "meaningful".
Are you starting to see that you don't really understand what statistical significance implies?
So which year was? There will always be uncertainty, so we should never say that any year is hotter than another? That's just silly.
"Not that meaningful." I guess I shouldn't expect that kind of plain honesty in a NASA press release. NASA scientists seem more interested in politics and staying "on message".
HA HA HA HA HA! You've swallowed the denier conspiracy theories hook line and sinker! Here's what the head of NASA's climate group said:
This is also despite the fact that differences of a few hundredths of a degree are simply not that important to any key questions or issues that might be of some policy relevance. A record year doesn’t appreciably affect attribution of past trends, nor the projection of future ones. It doesn’t re-calibrate estimated impacts or affect assessments of regional vulnerabilities. Records are obviously more expected in the presence of an underlying trend, but whether they occur in 2005, 2010 and 2014, as opposed to 2003, 2007 and 2015 is pretty much irrelevant.
- http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
if it is of interest to know which year is the warmest then why not let people know about it? No year has anywhere near as great a claim to the title of 'hottest year' as 2014. Despite your ravings, all uncertainties were included along with the announcement. You seem unable to deal with uncertainty, but so what?
Slashdot Mirror
Tamino says: "Assuming global warming continues without slowing down, we would have expected this," with an accompanying graph that extrapolates the long-term trend from 1970.
Then he says: "This is what actually happened," with an accompanying graph clearly showing a long term trend-line from 1970-2015.
Ok. Two paragraphs in and you already have it wrong. Look again. No 1970-2015 trend was added at this time. He is not comparing trend lines. Only the data was added after "This is what actually happened,"
I think Nasa's Gavin Schmidt is better positioned to understand what Tamino has done than you are
I'm sure he is, but he is not describing Tamino's analysis. He is describing his own. That is plain as day for anyone who has read Tamino's analysis. Please do so!
It's too bad Tamino does not say explicitly what his graph represents.
You are daft. He says exactly what it represents. It is not difficult. Read it.
You are linking to a different site showing a different thing you dolt! I'm not talking about the realClimate analysis! Lord! I only linked the exact site that I'm referring to about a dozen times! Once more - here it is: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
You can read right? Please do and stop wasting my time.
Ah. I see your confusion. You don't really understand what Tamino did. He did not compare 1970-2000 with 1970-2015. No wonder you are confused. He compared 1970-2000 with 2000-2015. Just as you have shown in your first link above. So no, that's not a gotcha. That's exactly what he is doing. Now he has also shown what you would predict for 2000-2015 if the 1970-2000 trend had continued. Guess what he found? Recent warming is exactly in line with what we would expect if the 1970-2000 trend had continued to present day. This is really not that tricky. Please take a moment to read the link before you make your next post. What a waste of time! You are arguing from ignorance and for no good reason!
If you wanted to compare pre-1950 with post-1950 you would do this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Chris Farley has you covered :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Your numbers are wrong and Taminos post is bogus
Plugging your ears and singing the alphabet song is not convincing.
If the warming were consistent then the trends would be similar.
But they are similar. There is no statistically significant difference between the two trends.
If the data showed an increased warming trend since 2000, Tamino's extrapolation trick is the one skeptics would be using to try to "prove" that global warming has "stayed about the same"
The method can be used to show whether the trend has stayed about the same regardless of whether the warming has increased or decreased over the most recent period. duh!
Questions end in question marks. Your statement was "I do find it hard to believe..." Whether or not you find something hard to believe is irrelevant. Also, you don't know what ad hominem means. Please look it up.
Looking at the recent trend won't help us know what the recent trend is like?? Seriously?
How can you still be asking this? The trend was anywhere from 0 to 0.216C/decade. So the trend is either no warming at all or warming past all expectations... but which is it really? Turns out it is exactly consistent with what we would have expected if the warming of 1970-2000 had continued past 2000 to present day.
I thought you'd wrapped your head around statistical significance, but we can take a step back if you need to. So the trend since 2000 is possibly as high as 0.216C/decade. The trend from 1970-2000 is possibly as low as 0.106C/decade. So just looking at the trend won't help us know whether the recent trend is what we would expect if the pre-2000 trend had continued unabated. To know that we would have to look at whether the recent trend is what we would expect if the pre-2000 trend had continued unabated.. And yes, this could be done on any data set. (duh).
I do find it hard to believe...
Argument from incredulity. Means nothing.
Please reread my last post. That question is already answered.
You still don't get it, but I think you're making progress. He is not measuring since 1970. He is predicting what values we should have seen after 2000 if the trend from 1970-2000 had continued past 2000. Guess what? We saw exactly the temperatures that we would have expected AFTER 2000 if the rate of warming had continued unabated:: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
And considering the sparse thermometer coverage, how can they claim to be accurate to within hundredths of a degree?
Oh you are thick. What do you think the uncertainty represents?
2014 was the hottest year. That is what we measured. There are uncertainties with the measurement that mean some other year may in fact have been hotter, but that's not what we measured on GISS, NOAA, or JMS.
What I said: How can Tamino say "global warming has continued" from 2000 to present when Nasa's own data shows no statistically significant warming during that period?
because, as we JUST finished agreeing, "no statistically significant trend" does NOT mean "There is no trend." It just means "I have chosen a method that cannot answer this question." and since Tamino is clever (and not stuck), he has chosen another method that CAN answer the question.
2014 was the hottest year on record. No other year has anywhere near as strong a claim. Usain Bolt won a world record in 2008. Get over it.
Finally!. So you cannot say that there has been no warming. At most you can say "I don't know given the limited data set that I've selected". Luckily we have a greater data set and don't need to limit ourselves. If you wanted to know whether the record fast warming from the 70's to 2000 had continued, you could do this and find that IT HAS: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
They are not wrong. That is GISS since 2005. As much as 0.254C over the ten years at 2 sigma. So as you note above, if we cannot rule out 0.254C then we cannot say that warming was any less than 0.254. It would not be "meaningful".
Are you starting to see that you don't really understand what statistical significance implies?
2014 was NOT the hottest year
So which year was? There will always be uncertainty, so we should never say that any year is hotter than another? That's just silly.
"Not that meaningful." I guess I shouldn't expect that kind of plain honesty in a NASA press release. NASA scientists seem more interested in politics and staying "on message".
HA HA HA HA HA! You've swallowed the denier conspiracy theories hook line and sinker! Here's what the head of NASA's climate group said:
This is also despite the fact that differences of a few hundredths of a degree are simply not that important to any key questions or issues that might be of some policy relevance. A record year doesn’t appreciably affect attribution of past trends, nor the projection of future ones. It doesn’t re-calibrate estimated impacts or affect assessments of regional vulnerabilities. Records are obviously more expected in the presence of an underlying trend, but whether they occur in 2005, 2010 and 2014, as opposed to 2003, 2007 and 2015 is pretty much irrelevant. - http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
The error bars go as high as 0.254C/decade. So does that mean warming must be at least that high?
if it is of interest to know which year is the warmest then why not let people know about it? No year has anywhere near as great a claim to the title of 'hottest year' as 2014. Despite your ravings, all uncertainties were included along with the announcement. You seem unable to deal with uncertainty, but so what?
clearly if there were error bars in the Olympics
There are. Whether you draw them or not.
then times that were extremely close and within the margin of error should be considered tied
So who won gold in 2008? Do you think that was also part of a grand conspiracy?
I wonder why they have them
I have no doubt they mystify you.