Our first Global Warming thing

[BlueCross]

The 'mean' is a moving average over a period of time (in this case, I believe 30 years).  So the 'mean' for one year is not necessarily the same as the mean for another year.

And on a scale where the average temp per year is rising, then the mean certainly is not the same for year to year.

And while it is possible that 1934 could be the 'warmest' year, it is not the warmest year because the delta from the mean was the largest in that year.

[Brugdor]

The 'mean' is a moving average over a period of time (in this case, I believe 30 years).  So the 'mean' for one year is not necessarily the same as the mean for another year.

And on a scale where the average temp per year is rising, then the mean certainly is not the same for year to year.

And while it is possible that 1934 could be the 'warmest' year, it is not the warmest year because the delta from the mean was the largest in that year.

But how was the mean here calculated? I assumed it was taking all years in the study into account.

[BlueCross]

"in this case, I believe 30 years"

30 years.  Moving average.  Stated before.

[Brugdor]

"in this case, I believe 30 years"

30 years.  Moving average.  Stated before.

Followup

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html


I think we should continue to look into this as I'm not convinced you have the numbers to back up your assessment. It may very well be that they are wrong but I find it odd that even the other detractors posting on these sites haven't brought up the point you made.

Part of the problem mentioned on the page I linked -

This is not the end but the beginning of the total reexamination that needs to occur of the USHCN and GISS data bases.  The poor correction for site location and urbanization are still huge issues that bias recent numbers upwards.  The GISS also has issues with how it aggregates multiple stations, apparently averaging known good stations with bad stations a process that by no means eliminates biases. As a first step, we must demand that NOAA and GISS release their methodology and computer algorithms to the general public for detailed scrutiny by other scientists.

[BlueCross]

*picks up bat, ball, and glove, and goes to play in 'how to unhook bra' thread*

[Solwyn]

I'm still a bit confused on how the mean system works as well.

I mean they move it to show a rate of change (as BC put it delta) but wouldn't it be a little easier just to give us the data in the form of average yearly temperature, as in the mean of all temperature data from the same times of the same days for a year?

That's what I think is confusing. Some of the data that people use to tout global warming is stuff like "well it jumped from 60 degrees to 80 degrees in two days this year!" an anti-global warmist will say "but then it dropped from 60 to 20 this year." But downward trends don't count apparently.

I believe in the trend, but I think the cause is what's throwing us. People are simultaneously saying "greenhouse gas increase" and "ozone layer depletion" are both causing the trend. But all the studies they use take into account a formula that uses atmospheric levels which remain constant. That's just ridiculous. We don't even know what would happen to our cloud layer if we lost all our ozone, and we have no idea what effect on ozone a 100% greenhouse gas effect would have. But no one says "I dunno" they say "ZOMG IT'S HOT STOP USING HAIRSPRAY"

Well prove the hairspray is doing it. The burden of proof here is on the accuser. Prove without using bogus models what the cause of the visible effect is, and then all the world will be FORCED to act by law. Studies we have now are freaking worthless for proving or disproving anything, they end up just being argued out.

[Chucara]

Man, that is one ill-explained figure. What is 0? Change as compared to last year? If this is the case, then the graph illustrates acceleration in temperature (which kinda makes sense), but it does not make 1934 the warmest year. Suppose 1933 had an average temperature of 10 degrees Celsius. If 1934 had an average temperature of 11 C, 1934 would be marked as a 1 on the figure. However, if 1997 had an average temperature 30 C, and 1998 had 30.5 C, 1998 would be 0.5 on the figure.

It's late and I didn't spend a lot of time on this, so please correct me if I'm wrong here.

[Solwyn]

But I think it's deviation from the mean of the 30 year periods, not the last year.

[Brugdor]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/NATION02/108150084/1008&template=nextpage

He was responding to our item yesterday about a Page 2 headline discovered in the Nov. 2, 1922, edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt." The newspaper told how "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

Mr. Christenson took the opportunity to forward an institute study outlining how the media, including the New York Times, Newsweek and Time, have warned about impending climate doom four different times in the past 100 years.

"It would appear that media hype is as cyclical as the climate," he concludes.

Interesting...