I can do a trendline without doing any math at all. But even if you run a polynomial formula to produce a trendline, the numbers you enter into the formula are exactly what I said, manipulated plotted data, not math and those same numbers will produce entirely different looking trendlines depending on which formula you use. The bottom line is, temperature data, plotted or not, is NOT math.
Trendline s are typically created via mathematical formulas. Least squares, moving averages…
Are you claiming that our current trend is not increasing temperatures? Going back 20, 50, 100 years?
No, I am not claiming that. How on earth did you get that from my post?
Well you seemed to be arguing against a positive slope trendline. If I was inferring incorrectly, please advise.
4th warmest year on record. Record fires in California and Australia. But yeah- nothing to see here.
Acknowledging facts would mean Al Gore is right- and Al Gore is an evil lib so therefore Global warning isnt happening- or some sort of pretzel logic like that.
I haven’t argued for or against a positive slope (presuming you mean a linear trendline) trendline. But the slope varies with time and with the limits on the data so the answer varies as well. it is pointless for you to keep asking me the question “is it warming” when there are so many variables behind that question.
Well, the slope doesn’t vary for a linear trendline but I know what you are trying to say.
You seem quite hesitant to just say it is warming. On other threads you have said nobody is disputing that the climate is warming. Now you seem reluctant to agree to that.
You must have missed this:
“If you turn up your thermostat one degree every day for a week, every day following that will be among the warmest. More directly on point, it warmed significantly from 1976 to 1998. Since that time however, the warming has been slight if at all. Yet because the temperature was high in ‘98 and hasn’t fallen, each year in this century is in record territory. It’s an artifact of simple math.”
And the record of fires in California and Australia is painfully short compared to climate records. California, for example, has just experienced the wettest century (the 20th) in 7000 years. Geologically, they have experienced numerous droughts that were more severe and which lasted up to 100 years. You have absolutely no idea what forest fires were there during those eras.
So your logic states that if at some point in Earths history it was warmer or there was flooding, then it doesn’t matter if California and Australia are experiencing modern record forest fires now?
Using the same logic, a climate denier would state- well you know meteors have happened historically so we shouldn’t worry about the current meteor threatening life on Earth.
It’s…silly.
Just stating the facts. Neither are the temperatures nor the fires anything new.
Sure- neither are extinction level meteors.
But what happened geologically has no bearing on how a current rapid rise in temperatures is leading to a massive threat to modern humans.
Hmm, why do you always reference 1998? Why not 1997? Why not 1996?
Why do AGW deniers always, by pure random chance, use 1998 as their point of reference?
2 Likes
Of course it has a bearing. It gives us a better perspective on what is “normal” than simply looking at what you have observed in your brief lifetime.
Some analysises do reference 1996 as the end of the rapid increase since the mid 70s, calling the higher peak in ‘98 an extreme El Niño event rather than part of that trend. Regardless of which year you use, the global temperature has fluctuated slightly higher and lower than that mark since.
This is called cherry picking and why no one in any legitimate attempt to review the data would look at any year in particular but five year averages.
And when you do that, the warming has indeed continued apace since 1998.
It is not cherry picking, it’s called looking at the plotted data and estimating where the brake in the slope of the rate of change is. As I said, I could not care less if you use ‘96, ‘97, or ‘98 as that break point, the analysis is the same. And using five year running averages doesn’t change it either. All that does is moderate the extremes, it doesn’t change the slope.
It’s cherry picking and it’s been done by the denier community for a decade now. You don’t see it very much anymore because. After the last 5 years it’s no longer true.
Use any “break point” you want, tell me what the slope is if you’re claiming it’s chanfed.
And you are bound and determined to make a case out of nothing. The 1996 “break point” comes from NOAA, NASA and every other government climate related agency around the world. Do you remember the big “hide the decline” todo? That was when they first began to talk about the slower rate of warming and that is the year they chose to use.
Borgia and I were having no trouble understanding what each of us was saying. So why don’t you move on instead of arguing about something as dumb as what year someone uses for a particular response to someone else’s question.
I have only seen AGW deniers use 1998 as their reference. Tell you what, source your data and I will plug into Excel to see if using 1996 creates a flat linear fit.
Yes, I recall hearing about the “pause” quite a bit. Not so much anymore.
