Global Cooling

[Bagpuss]

Shhhh, Slowly but surely the global warming argument is pursuading clients to let contractors work from home. If the alternative means sitting in traffic jams
(however nice your V6 petrol eater) I'd still rather sit in my undies at home saving the planet.

[Lucy]

Shhhh, Slowly but surely the global warming argument is pursuading clients to let contractors work from home. If the alternative means sitting in traffic jams
(however nice your V6 petrol eater) I'd still rather sit in my undies at home saving the planet.

Pussycat, do we have to know this?

[moorfield]

Shhhh, Slowly but surely the global warming argument is pursuading clients to let contractors work from home..

I'm working from home today. Come to think of it, it is flipping chilly out on the patio this morning. I'll just go and crank up my big patio heater , back in a mo ...

[sasguru]

Cat got yer tongue mr CSE maths grade 4?

Not really. I just can't work out if you really are that dim. A 10 year spell is nothing in the big scheme of things - my previous point still applies - variability can occur in any sequence, it just depends what time period you care to look at.

Selective cherry picking of a narrow time periods is a classic con usually perpertrated by politicians, as discussed in Darell Huff's classic "How to lie with Statistics".

This time series is more indicative:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

[Bagpuss]

Reminds me of the Police statistics on the 'safety' effect of speed cameras. The data is not modelled. They just selectively compare with a particularly bad year, not taking into account correlated variables like weather. The False positive effect.

[Moscow Mule]

Looks like it started going crazy about 1980 so I blame data centers.

It's the machines I tell you - they are out to get us. Skynet will become reality.*






* I think I shall name today as "Crazy Conspiracy Theory Tuesday" either that or "Sausage and Mash Tuesday" as that's what I'll be having for lunch.

[TimberWolf]

Not really. I just can't work out if you really are that dim. A 10 year spell is nothing in the big scheme of things - my previous point still applies - variability can occur in any sequence, it just depends what time period you care to look at.

Selective cherry picking of a narrow time periods is a classic con usually perpertrated by politicians, as discussed in Darell Huff's classic "How to lie with Statistics".

This time series is more indicative:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

That's quite cherry picked too. I quite like this one:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temper...e.html#4600Myr

Only another one degree warmer and it will be hotter than it has been for a million years Mind you, prior to that it was way hotter than it is today. Spot on with the scale thing; even on that selective graph on the GW deniers page you can still see the underlying upward trend. Mind you the pro GW activists play the same games with graphs. You need to pick a scale that's important to you, otherwise they're all meaningless. Perhaps one showing trends relevant to the next generation or two?

Edit: The "Temperature in the Northern Hemisphere over the last 1000 years" graph near the bottom is the most alarming for the short term trend.

[DimPrawn]

Not really. I just can't work out if you really are that dim. A 10 year spell is nothing in the big scheme of things - my previous point still applies - variability can occur in any sequence, it just depends what time period you care to look at.

Selective cherry picking of a narrow time periods is a classic con usually perpertrated by politicians, as discussed in Darell Huff's classic "How to lie with Statistics".

This time series is more indicative:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

The graph is flat and now turning downward. Has been flat since the end of the last century. And yet CO2 has never been higher.

Thus proving that increasing CO2 does not increase temperature.

[DimPrawn]

And most of the graph shows a cooling. Only 1980 to 2000 shows a dramatic rise and 2007 to 2008 (not on the graph) shows a dramatic fall (0.6 deg c) taking the graph back into the blue cooling phase.

Utter total bollox. Global warming has been shown for the politically driven anomally it always was.

[TheBigYinJames]

Utter total bollox. Global warming has been shown for the politically driven anomally it always was.

Since most of that graph is below the 0 point, it seems unwise to use a small blip at the end to prove global warming. using an average as a baseline is stupid when you only have such a small range of data.

It's a bit like arguing that it's terrible that half of people are less intelligent than average.