Remember me
▼ Content

80 year moving average data



Page 1 of 212>
80 year moving average data20-03-2015 03:05
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
I'm a structural engineer. I make my living designing structures in the arctic. I have studied temperature data very closely because it factors into projections for ice formation, permafrost temperature and many other aspects of what I design.

Several years ago, I was gathering data for a site for the design of a bridge. Using the 50+ years of temperature data for Barrow, Alaska I generated a Freezing Index chart to determine the trends for use in our project. Just for entertainment, I fit a linear regression to the data to see if I could see "Global Warming" in the data. Sure enough, you could clearly see a decline in the Freezing Index over the 50 year period corresponding with a warming trend in the data. However, I also noticed that there was more of a curve to the chart than a linear representation captured. When a curve was fit to the data, it corresponded with a sinusoidal function with a period of approximately 80 years.

On a hunch, I did some looking at what solar cycles might be in that range. Interestingly, there is a solar cycle, the Glyssberg Cycle for solar irradiance/sunspot activity. Looking for some means of validating a hypothesis over such a long time frame, I searched for corresponding temperature and sunspot data that could be compared with each other to see if there is any relationship. I found the Central England Temperature Record (1659 to present) and a historical sunspot record over that same time period (give or take a few years). I plotted several moving averages of temperature vs sunspot count. Year to year, 11 year, 22 year...many others I got very little correlation. However, at 80 years the correlation is striking. I would invite any of you to duplicate what I've done and see it for yourself. The two records are very tightly correlated, and you can see the 80 year moving average of sunspot count is at the highest point ever recorded in the last 350 years. Is it just a coincidence that the temperature has risen and fallen with this moving average consistently during that time frame? See the attached chart and let me know what you think.
Attached file:
sunspots.pdf
Edited on 20-03-2015 03:11
20-03-2015 21:14
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
As a follow up, I did some additional analysis on the data and I've attached a spreadsheet so you can have a look for yourself. Basically there are high correlations between sunspot activity (solar irradiance) and temperature. Shocking I know. You can clearly see that in the 80-100 year time frame, there are very strong relationships between the two and in the last 100 years there has been a steady increase in the 80-100 year moving average of both temperature and sunspot count far beyond anything seen in the last 200+ years.

An analogy that explains what this is suggesting is the following:

Assume you're in a house that has a thermostat that is constantly changing. Cycling every 11 minutes between 67 degrees and 69 degrees. Given the short period of time between the changes, you would see no change to the temperature in your house. It would center somewhere around 68 degrees. Now add an additional component to this cycle. Keeping the same 2 degree change every 11 minutes, lets add/subtract an additional 2 degree change every 44 minutes, gradually increasing and decreasing over that time frame. In this scenario you would see a temperature change because of the cumulative effects of the slightly elevated heat input. For example for a period of 44 minutes you would be cycling roughly between 69 degrees and 71 degrees where you would expect an increase in temperature above the "usual" 68 degrees.

This is exactly what the sun is doing over many years. The sun has an 11 year cycle for irradiance. This is too short of a time frame to adjust the earth's temperature significantly. The sun also has an 80-100 year cycle for irradiance and this time frame is sufficient to make changes to the earth's temperature. For the last 100 years, the sun has been slowly turning up the thermostat (look at the 80-100 year moving averages for sunspot activity) and this perfectly matches the Earth's temperature increase over the same timeframe.

Please see attached spreadsheet and play with it all you'd like. I welcome any comments on this.
Attached file:
svtdata.xlsx
23-03-2015 11:48
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
FYI

http://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_origins_of_DeVries_200_year_and_Gleissberg_83_year_solar_cycles

The Gleissberg cycle, on the other hand, is seen in the sunspot record, but it may not be a very robust feature. You can read more about it in a great review article by David Hathaway here http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2013-1/. One interesting note on the Gleissberg "cycle" is that it has been shown to have changed periods from 7.5 to 8.5 solar cycles over the last 200 years, which is perhaps a hint that this isn't really a cycle so much as some sort of chance clustering of chaotic data.
23-03-2015 18:45
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
While I agree the cycle is not well defined, it does exist. If you look at the sunspot record, there is clearly an amplitude modulation with a period between 50-100 years.
07-09-2015 05:15
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
seaninak wrote:
I'm a structural engineer. I make my living designing structures in the arctic. I have studied temperature data very closely because it factors into projections for ice formation, permafrost temperature and many other aspects of what I design.

.....

On a hunch, I did some looking at what solar cycles might be in that range. Interestingly, there is a solar cycle, the Glyssberg Cycle for solar irradiance/sunspot activity. Looking for some means of validating a hypothesis over such a long time frame, I searched for corresponding temperature and sunspot data that could be compared with each other to see if there is any relationship. I found the Central England Temperature Record (1659 to present) and a historical sunspot record over that same time period (give or take a few years). I plotted several moving averages of temperature vs sunspot count. Year to year, 11 year, 22 year...many others I got very little correlation. However, at 80 years the correlation is striking. I would invite any of you to duplicate what I've done and see it for yourself. The two records are very tightly correlated, and you can see the 80 year moving average of sunspot count is at the highest point ever recorded in the last 350 years. Is it just a coincidence that the temperature has risen and fallen with this moving average consistently during that time frame? See the attached chart and let me know what you think.


I don't know where you got the sunspot data from but it is completely wrong. The sunspot best data is from the Royal Belgian Observatory's Solar Influences Data Centre or from the NOAA Space Weather prediction center.

Your plot shows a peak in solar activity in about 2005, the actual peak was in 1957, since then there has been a steady decline in solar activity just as global temperatures started to rise rapidly.

PS almost no solar physicists take the Glyssberg Cycle seriously any more, myself included.
07-09-2015 11:46
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
DRKTS

For a solar physicist I would assume that you would at least get the name of the particular cycle in question correct. It's called the Gleissberg Solar Cycle not Glyssberg and believe it or not it was debunked on WUWT last year. So you see WUWT presents facts and then anyone can dispute them unlike climate science, where you are advised by the IPCC not to enter into debate.
It's also sad that anyone that does not believe in AGW must then believe in pseudoscience according to you. So a Unified Theory of Climate or any other theory on climate science must be wrong as it does not fully agree with AGW.
What kind of science did they teach you?
07-09-2015 12:25
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
arthur18 wrote:
DRKTS

For a solar physicist I would assume that you would at least get the name of the particular cycle in question correct. It's called the Gleissberg Solar Cycle not Glyssberg and believe it or not it was debunked on WUWT last year. So you see WUWT presents facts and then anyone can dispute them unlike climate science, where you are advised by the IPCC not to enter into debate.
It's also sad that anyone that does not believe in AGW must then believe in pseudoscience according to you. So a Unified Theory of Climate or any other theory on climate science must be wrong as it does not fully agree with AGW.
What kind of science did they teach you?


I was using the spelling that the author used.

On a hunch, I did some looking at what solar cycles might be in that range. Interestingly, there is a solar cycle, the Glyssberg Cycle for solar irradiance/sunspot activity.....


I wish people would stop telling me what I believe (and getting it entirely wrong), and just stick to saying what they believe and stating why. Other theories are perfectly acceptable if they explain the same observations about as well and have no major flaws. There are no such theories around today except the AGW theory.

As for the Unified Climate Theory, as far as I can tell it was not published in any peer reviewed scientific journal but merely a poster at an "open science" climate meeting. Their poster is naïve. First because they do not differentiate between types of cloud (high clouds trap more escaping IR heat, low reflect more sunlight). Secondly because they appeal to the old (debunked) chestnut that cosmic rays variations affect clouds. Third they assume that the cloud feedback is strongly negative, recent studies have shown it is at best weakly negative (ie have little effect if any) or possibly positive.

I think it is ironic that since they did this work (2010) where they confidently predict that the Earth can get no warmer, we have had 3 of the 5 warmest years on record, and this year looks to surpass them all by quite a large margin. So I could equally ask what on Earth are they teaching at the Rocky Mountain Research Station?
08-09-2015 19:47
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Look at the title of the plot. It's not sunspot count, its the 80 year moving average of sunspot count. Big difference. The data is based on the official record so if you disagree take it up with NOAA. Open the spreadsheet and you'll see the actual yearly values used in the calculation, or better yet, get the data yourself and do the calculation yourself, it takes about 5 minutes. Whether a true "cycle" exists is not my point, long term trends in solar activity are what drives the climate, not the shorter ones. Frankly, arguing with you people is worse than trying to have a conversation with a rabid dog. Nothing but insults and claims of science but no hard facts and no consideration of anything that doesn't tow the line.
08-09-2015 21:13
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
seaninak wrote:
Look at the title of the plot. It's not sunspot count, its the 80 year moving average of sunspot count. Big difference. The data is based on the official record so if you disagree take it up with NOAA. Open the spreadsheet and you'll see the actual yearly values used in the calculation, or better yet, get the data yourself and do the calculation yourself, it takes about 5 minutes. Whether a true "cycle" exists is not my point, long term trends in solar activity are what drives the climate, not the shorter ones. Frankly, arguing with you people is worse than trying to have a conversation with a rabid dog. Nothing but insults and claims of science but no hard facts and no consideration of anything that doesn't tow the line.


If it is an 80-year running average the last point on the chart should be plotted in 1975 (you plot the points at the center of the range, not the beginning or end).

There is a second problem: An 80 year running average is not divisible by the average solar cycle length (about 11 years) so you are including about 7.5 cycles in each data point. That means that some points will include two solar minima while others will include two maxima. What will that do? It will introduce fake periodicities that were not there in the original data especially as the amplitude and timing of the cycle varies so much.
08-09-2015 21:18
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
seaninak wrote:
The data is based on the official record so if you disagree take it up with NOAA. ......

Frankly, arguing with you people is worse than trying to have a conversation with a rabid dog. Nothing but insults and claims of science but no hard facts and no consideration of anything that doesn't tow the line.


Actually (as I pointed out above) the official sunspot number data is held by the SIDC in Belgium, not NOAA.

Please point out where I used a single insult or was not factual
09-09-2015 19:15
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Its not you in particular but in general the tone is condescending and demeaning and not backed up by individually researched data. Everyone cites studies done by others and never bothering to check the facts behind them. It's a very simple thing to do what I did and I'd respect your response much more if you did it. Get the data yourself from whatever source you prefer (although you yourself said NOAA was a valid one...if not, I'm sure NOAA might beg to differ) plot the moving averages (80-100 years) of sunspots vs temperature (CET) and you will see what I've presented here. You can argue all you want about what it means but it's quite obvious to me. Sadly, I think the "question everything" approach to science is dead. Replaced by "consensus" and defamatory terms like "denier" which sounds a lot like "heretic"...its quite sad really.
10-09-2015 04:20
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
seaninak wrote:
Its not you in particular but in general the tone is condescending and demeaning and not backed up by individually researched data.


So I did not insult anyone, thanks.

Everyone cites studies done by others and never bothering to check the facts behind them. It's a very simple thing to do what I did and I'd respect your response much more if you did it. Get the data yourself from whatever source you prefer (although you yourself said NOAA was a valid one...if not, I'm sure NOAA might beg to differ) plot the moving averages (80-100 years) of sunspots vs temperature (CET) and you will see what I've presented here. You can argue all you want about what it means but it's quite obvious to me.


I have done those analyses repeatedly, see my climate videos on YouTube.

I know the space weather team at NOAA in boulder, in fact their current director, Tom Berger, worked for me before taking up that post. They archive the sunspot data but do not do the analysis themselves. They recognize the SIDC as the keeper of official international sunspot numbers, just go to their site and search on "SIDC".

Sadly, I think the "question everything" approach to science is dead. Replaced by "consensus" and defamatory terms like "denier" which sounds a lot like "heretic"...its quite sad really.


Science was never done by "question everything" if you did that there would never be any progress. It would be like baking a cake but insisting that you must grow and process all the ingredients from scratch. Consequently you would not bake many (any?) cakes.

Nor is questioning for questioning sake when the established (by which I mean tried and tested science) disagrees with your opinion because the consequence of believing it would disrupt your political views or financial well being.

Each step is built on the work of others that preceded us. You question something in science when you find a discrepancy. Most often these minor corrections lead to a deeper understanding of the problem. It does not mean the original work was wrong, it has merely been improved upon. The classic example is Newton's Law of Gravity, which is still used today in most spacecraft orbit calculations, where a slight discrepancy in the orbit of Mercury led Einstein to come up with relativity. Newton was not wrong, Einstein merely broadened the application of the Law to a broader range of circumstances.
10-09-2015 14:35
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
DRKTS

" the established (by which I mean tried and tested science) disagrees with your opinion because the consequence of believing it would disrupt your political views or financial well being."

Climate change science is as far as you can get from tried and tested science.

http://www.informath.org/AR5stat.pdf

http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-1-Models.pdf

The problem is that these unvalidated models disagree with reality. The concocted hockey stick graph going through the roof disagrees with reality and the so called warming is regional or moves to parts of the oceans or different levels of the atmosphere or hides under someones mattress.

To infer that someone doesn't believe in AGW because "it would disrupt your political views or financial well being." is typical of the rubbish someone that questions this very new and untested field of science has to endure, and the only thing you neglected to mention is that we are probably funded by big oil.

The majority of people don't accept AGW, because of the conflicting or insufficient evidence, alarmist or misleading info (Mann's hockey stick), cherry picking of data, lack of transparency and secrecy, using terms like consensus and denier, fiddling with data, Climategate, etc.etc.

If someone tells me that irreversible and catastrophic climate change is just around the corner because of the increase in the atmosphere of a trace gas, they better have some real proof not computer generated projections, real evidence and make it accessible to everyone in the scientific community for verification.

People like you who post on this site claiming to be some sort of scientist and continually insisting this is settled also do not help. AGW will not be settled for decades or possibly centuries, in fact if you compare the satellite temp. data and the computer models, you can just about say that it is settled and that the increase in CO2 has not caused the predicted runaway warming that the IPCC predicted so the theory is flaky at best.
10-09-2015 19:43
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
DRKTS wrote:
seaninak wrote:
Look at the title of the plot. It's not sunspot count, its the 80 year moving average of sunspot count. Big difference. The data is based on the official record so if you disagree take it up with NOAA. Open the spreadsheet and you'll see the actual yearly values used in the calculation, or better yet, get the data yourself and do the calculation yourself, it takes about 5 minutes. Whether a true "cycle" exists is not my point, long term trends in solar activity are what drives the climate, not the shorter ones. Frankly, arguing with you people is worse than trying to have a conversation with a rabid dog. Nothing but insults and claims of science but no hard facts and no consideration of anything that doesn't tow the line.


If it is an 80-year running average the last point on the chart should be plotted in 1975 (you plot the points at the center of the range, not the beginning or end).

There is a second problem: An 80 year running average is not divisible by the average solar cycle length (about 11 years) so you are including about 7.5 cycles in each data point. That means that some points will include two solar minima while others will include two maxima. What will that do? It will introduce fake periodicities that were not there in the original data especially as the amplitude and timing of the cycle varies so much.


The 11 year cycle is actually more like 5-15 years, averaging around 11. I've run this at moving averages from 11 years to 121 year including (22, 44, 66, 88, 99,110 and 121). There are very strong correlations between 80 and 100 years (R^2=0.8 or higher). So, yes I've considered that.
13-09-2015 14:06
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
seaninak wrote:

The 11 year cycle is actually more like 5-15 years, averaging around 11. I've run this at moving averages from 11 years to 121 year including (22, 44, 66, 88, 99,110 and 121). There are very strong correlations between 80 and 100 years (R^2=0.8 or higher). So, yes I've considered that.


Wrong! The shortest cycle to date is 9 years (SC2) and the longest is 14 years (SC4). The average is 11.1 years with standard deviation of just over 1 year. So it is not as variable as you seem to think.

Of course, if the average cycle is 11 years then you will get resonances at multiples of that cycle (with period folding or FFT analyses). However, if you have such a short period of reliable data (I am worried about the reliability any sunspot data over 150 years old, perhaps even 100 years), the longer periods become meaningless (too few cycles to draw any conclusions).
14-09-2015 19:29
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
If you can't beat em, join em I guess. It really doesn't amount to much in the end. If you're right, in a hundred years the world will be a bit warmer. If I'm right it will be pretty much just like it is today.

I'm tired of arguing myself out of work. There's millions to be made redesigning the entire Arctic infrastructure. Erosion protection to combat global sea level rise, replacing every building's foundation due to permafrost thawing, thickening all roads and pads for the oilfields in the Arctic to prevent thaw. Billions and Billions of dollars. Trillions worldwide.

All this time I've been arguing that this is a natural cycle and there's nothing to be done. I get no financial gain from that. If I just suck it up, there are people falling all over themselves to pay for new infrastructure to account for climate change.

Thanks for the epiphany. I've got some fleecing to do.
15-09-2015 03:02
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
seaninak wrote:
If you can't beat em, join em I guess. It really doesn't amount to much in the end. If you're right, in a hundred years the world will be a bit warmer. If I'm right it will be pretty much just like it is today.


No, it won't be pretty much like today. You have seen the changes wrought by just 1 C increase in 100 years, what do you think 3C more will do in less than 85 years?


5C lower temperatures will put us into an ice age so 3C more will do what? We don't know, nor do you. It is like walking though a field of landmines blindfolded. The best plan is to stop walking and take off the blindfold. Not run head thinking nothing bad can happen.

Natural cycles you say. OK, which one? There has to be a specific cause for the warming we have seen in just 100 years if it is not a combination GHGs and aerosols. Which of the natural cycles has primarily caused this unprecedented change? Her I need you to be quantitative as well as qualitative.
15-09-2015 04:00
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
...and the proposed fix for this is Trillions of dollars. I'll just shut up and get rich. Thanks very much.

There's a spreadsheet attached several posts above that is quite quantitative.

If you are familiar with Finite Element Modeling (I work with FEM's every day) then you know they are highly dependent on simplifying assumptions, proper modeling of boundary conditions, element meshing density and a slough of other variables. When a FEM disagrees with common sense, one should question its results vigorously until it can be proven beyond doubt that it is accurate. FEM's should always be calibrated against known behavior before they are to be trusted. The models being used for prediction of climate change are simplifying a VERY complex system with billions of variables, most of which aren't being modeled at all. The model output shows results that downplay the effect of the only heat source the Earth has as a cause of heating, and points to an obscure gas, with weak greenhouse effect as the culprit. This is akin to saying your house is too hot, but not because the thermostat is set too high but because your windows are dirty. Meanwhile I can show a direct correlation between solar activity in the last 350 years and the CET and that is to be wholly disregarded in favor of FEM results.

Clearly logic doesn't work in these arguments and it's completely illogical for me to continue arguing against my own financial interests. So you win, I'll shut up and make my millions.
15-09-2015 05:59
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
seaninak wrote:
Meanwhile I can show a direct correlation between solar activity in the last 350 years and the CET and that is to be wholly disregarded in favor of FEM results.



You may work with FEM but I am a solar physicist (look me up Dr Keith Strong, check out by book "Many Faces of the Sun") and I can show that there is no such correlation between solar activity and global warming.

Even if there were, as you should know, a correlation is meaningless in science as far as proof or disproof of a theory. It is merely an invitation to look more deeply into the physics of the problem.
15-09-2015 08:37
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
DRKTS "You have seen the changes wrought by just 1 C increase in 100 years"

Can you outline these changes for us please, both positive and negative.
15-09-2015 12:52
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
arthur18 wrote:
DRKTS "You have seen the changes wrought by just 1 C increase in 100 years"

Can you outline these changes for us please, both positive and negative.


Few positives: Some areas getting milder winters (lower energy usage) or longer growing seasons. Places like Greenland becoming more habitable. Fewer winter deaths from exposure to cold. Some crops can be grown further poleward than before (e.g., grapes in the UK)


Many negatives: sea level rise (increased beach erosion, salt water invading coastal aquifers, loss of coastal wetlands, increased impact of major storms, see effects on places like Bangladesh); loss of glaciers and snow packs (which supply summer water for places like the west coast of the US, northern India); milder winters (fails to kill off pests that damage crops and trees .. stink bugs here in the east, pine beetles in the west); ocean acidification (coral die off); increasing rate of species extinction; hotter summers (more people dying of heat stroke ... far out weights positive winter effects); lower soil moisture (crop loses); increasing allergies and respiratory diseases due to air pollution build up in hot inversion layers; stronger storms with increased property damage and deaths (W.H.O. estimated that GW is killing an additional 50,000 people per year worldwide which could grow to over 250,000 by 2050); invasive species (example Kudzu here on east coast ... never saw any sign of the stuff in the 1980's, now each year I have to hack it away from my backyard); higher sea temperatures which encourage algae blooms creating dead zones in the oceans (see fish die offs); resource wars (especially water - see Syria, Israel, Mali); increased extent and duration of flooding in some places and droughts in others; increased desertification at lower latitudes; higher summer temperatures lead to increased energy usage; places that never need A/C before now are getting it (New England and UK for example); increased national security concerns (see the Pentagon reports on AGW); melting permafrost which could lead to the release of more GHGs (see effects in Alaska and Siberia); and so on.
15-09-2015 18:51
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
DRKTS wrote:
seaninak wrote:
Meanwhile I can show a direct correlation between solar activity in the last 350 years and the CET and that is to be wholly disregarded in favor of FEM results.



You may work with FEM but I am a solar physicist (look me up Dr Keith Strong, check out by book "Many Faces of the Sun") and I can show that there is no such correlation between solar activity and global warming.

Even if there were, as you should know, a correlation is meaningless in science as far as proof or disproof of a theory. It is merely an invitation to look more deeply into the physics of the problem.


I'd very much like to see the study that compares correlations between long term moving averages of solar activity and temperature. All that I can find are looking at 11 years...22 years. As if to say, "see, nothing here folks". They should be looking at 70 to 100 years.

Since I know it is difficult to open a spreadsheet and see what it is saying, I'll give you some highlights.

The correlations between moving averages of sunspot count and CET (350 year record):

10 year moving average: R^2=0.14
20 year moving average: R^2=0.26
30 year moving average: R^2=0.35
40 year moving average: R^2=0.43
50 year moving average: R^2=0.54
60 year moving average: R^2=0.65
70 year moving average: R^2=0.74
80 year moving average: R^2=0.79
90 year moving average: R^2=0.84
100 year moving average: R^2=0.87
120 year moving average: R^2=0.73

Clearly, in the range where most studies have taken place, there is no correlation (between 10 and 60 years). Between 70 and 100 years the correlation coefficients are very high. R^2 of 0.87 is a strong correlation. For those that don't understand what this means, it means when the 100 year moving average (average of sunspot count for the 100 years preceding it) goes up, the moving average of the temperature (average of temperature in Central England for the 100 years preceding it) goes up almost always. Above 100 years this correlation drops off again. With correlations that high, its not a loose, weak relationship. One is practically a function of the other.

I don't understand how this isn't just patently obvious. If the sun puts out more heat for a long period of time, the earth's temperature rises.

This isn't complex physics, it's elementary physics. More heat output=higher temperature.
15-09-2015 21:38
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
Would you agree with this data source for revised sunspot number?

http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt
16-09-2015 03:11
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
New results with "corrected" sunspot count. These show the same trend but R^2 values are focused much more on 90 and 100 year MA. See attached.
Attached file:
90year.pdf
Edited on 16-09-2015 03:13
16-09-2015 03:14
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
...and the 100 year.
Attached file:
100year.pdf
16-09-2015 03:36
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
seaninak wrote:


I don't understand how this isn't just patently obvious. If the sun puts out more heat for a long period of time, the earth's temperature rises.

This isn't complex physics, it's elementary physics. More heat output=higher temperature.


I too don't understand this is not just patently obvious. If there are more heat trapping gases in the Earth's atmosphere building up over a long time, the Earth's temperature will rise.

It isn't complex physics, it's elementary physics. More heat trapped = higher temperatures.
16-09-2015 04:12
seaninak
☆☆☆☆☆
(36)
DRKTS wrote:
If it is an 80-year running average the last point on the chart should be plotted in 1975 (you plot the points at the center of the range, not the beginning or end).


I just saw this. This is the Moving (trailing) Average, i.e. the 80 to 100 years prior to the date. I don't think I could argue that the temperature at a given time is a function of future solar activity. For example the 2014 value would take the average of 1914 through 2014.
16-09-2015 04:22
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
To DKRTS

With that response, you have proven that you are an alarmist. Some of those so called negative effects just made me laugh. Sea levels were rising a long time before the industrial revolution as we are coming out of the last ice age. Major storms if anything have been decreasing, as for "increased national security concerns (see the Pentagon reports on AGW)" now that really made me laugh.
I guess if you want people to believe in catastrophic and irreversible climate change, you yourself have to believe in everything the govt. tells you.
Have you already forgotten about WMD and the amount of misery that caused? There is about as much proof for AGW as there was for WMD's.
16-09-2015 08:22
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
To DKRTS
Please read attached re your term "ocean acidification".

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/15/are-the-oceans-becoming-more-acidic/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150605182812.htm

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=3622&cid=63809
17-09-2015 00:07
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
arthur18 wrote:
To DKRTS

With that response, you have proven that you are an alarmist. Some of those so called negative effects just made me laugh. Sea levels were rising a long time before the industrial revolution as we are coming out of the last ice age. Major storms if anything have been decreasing, as for "increased national security concerns (see the Pentagon reports on AGW)" now that really made me laugh.
I guess if you want people to believe in catastrophic and irreversible climate change, you yourself have to believe in everything the govt. tells you.
Have you already forgotten about WMD and the amount of misery that caused? There is about as much proof for AGW as there was for WMD's.


Again I wish you would not keep telling me what I believe ... that is an old debate trick called a straw-man argument.

I am glad you find all those consequences so funny, especially the additional deaths.
17-09-2015 03:20
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
To DKRTS
"I am glad you find all those consequences so funny, especially the additional deaths."

What additional deaths? They are just worst case scenarios and those deaths are estimates (and of course AGW is to blame), unless you can start naming people. A lot more people will die from unnecessary wars (WMD) and poverty, especially seeing all this money spent on climate change could have been spent on third world countries, instead of grants for any research that has climate in its title.

What I find amusing is some of the things on your list, like stink bugs and pine beetles. Here are some other things you left out.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
17-09-2015 04:31
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
arthur18 wrote:
To DKRTS
"I am glad you find all those consequences so funny, especially the additional deaths."

What additional deaths? They are just worst case scenarios and those deaths are estimates (and of course AGW is to blame), unless you can start naming people. A lot more people will die from unnecessary wars (WMD) and poverty, especially seeing all this money spent on climate change could have been spent on third world countries, instead of grants for any research that has climate in its title.

What I find amusing is some of the things on your list, like stink bugs and pine beetles. Here are some other things you left out.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html


It does not make the deaths any less real, as in "it was estimated that over 15,000 people died as a result of the tsunami that hit Japan in 2011". Do you deny that those death are not real either?

Those 50,000 deaths worldwide are specific to the effect of global warming, so yes, AGW is to blame.

Just to give you a brief glimpse of reality: If all the money that went to government grants for scientific research in a year on all subjects were spent on the US military. It would keep it running for less than one additional day.
17-09-2015 11:00
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
To DKRTS
Are you sure you are a scientist? The deaths in the Japanese tsunami have ACTUALLY happened, nobody can deny that, whereas the WHO are making estimates on future casualties and trying to link it to AGW. These deaths may or may not occur. The fact that they estimate 50,000 additional deaths per year is not proof that 50,000 people will die, and it is common sense that more people will die from climate related deaths simply because there are more people in the world over 80 than any other time in history.
If the globe fails to warm in the next few years, are those people still going to die due to AGW.
All that extra AGW funding may not mean much in comparison to the US military budget but how about a few thousand starving Africans, how long will it feed them/
17-09-2015 13:22
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
arthur18 wrote:
To DKRTS
Are you sure you are a scientist? The deaths in the Japanese tsunami have ACTUALLY happened, nobody can deny that, whereas the WHO are making estimates on future casualties and trying to link it to AGW. These deaths may or may not occur. The fact that they estimate 50,000 additional deaths per year is not proof that 50,000 people will die, and it is common sense that more people will die from climate related deaths simply because there are more people in the world over 80 than any other time in history.
If the globe fails to warm in the next few years, are those people still going to die due to AGW.
All that extra AGW funding may not mean much in comparison to the US military budget but how about a few thousand starving Africans, how long will it feed them/


Sure I am not a scientist? Please google me or look up my book "Many Faces of the Sun" or read an article I wrote for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00179.1). Now please remind us all of your qualifications?

The 50,000 per annual deaths are estimates of current and past deaths caused by the increased violence of the weather due to AGW based on reports from each country. The estimate of future deaths are based on the increasing impacts of AGW.

Not very long as food prices for staples continue to rise. We need to understand the problem and address it not just partially look at the symptoms. That is like saying take an aspirin for the pain, but we don't need to address the gangrene infecting your leg.
18-09-2015 04:08
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
As soon as everybody admits that the real problem is overpopulation, we can address the problem.
"Increased violence of the weather"? Is that the latest alarmist term?
I presume you have proof of this "increased violence of the weather".
18-09-2015 05:11
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
arthur18 wrote:
As soon as everybody admits that the real problem is overpopulation, we can address the problem.
"Increased violence of the weather"? Is that the latest alarmist term?
I presume you have proof of this "increased violence of the weather".


We keep seeing 100-year or even millennial events every few years. For example there is an abbey in the UK that has been standing at the confluence of two major rivers for 900 years. The town regularly floods. I remember the vicar there telling us proudly that the flood waters have never reached the door of the abbey in its 900-year history (the monks kept meticulous records of the rivers' heights and local flooding)... a sign of god's good favour.

In has now flooded twice in the last 10 years.

We have had two of the largest typhoons ever recorded in the pacific ocean. Then there was Sandy. A hurricane even hit Hampshire a few years back where they hardy ever happen (save to destroy the Armada in 1588AD).

We had a major wind storm blow through here a few years ago - a durecho, causing our power to go down for nearly a week. It was termed "unprecedented" by the local meteorologist.

An extract of a WMO report:

Temperatures: Between 2001 and 2010, above-average temperatures were observed in most parts of the world. About 44 percent of countries in the WMO survey reported their hottest nationwide temperatures on record; between 1991 and 2000, only 24 percent did.

The average global temperature rose by 0.17°C during the decade, more than twice the average increase of 0.062°C per decade for the 130 years between 1880 and 2010.

Floods and precipitation: The year 2010 was the world's wettest since modern weather measurements began, while the full decade was the world's second-wettest since 1901. Most parts of the world experienced above-normal precipitation, while droughts also occurred worldwide, with notably severe droughts in Australia (2002), Africa (2004 and 2005), and South America's Amazon Basin.

Tropical cyclones (hurricanes and tropical storms): During the last decade, nearly 170,000 people were killed in 511 tropical cyclone-related weather events, a period that was the most active in the North Atlantic Basin since 1855. An average of 15 named storms formed each year between 2001 and 2010, compared to the long-term average of 12 named storms per year.

Weather impacts: The loss of more than 370,000 people can be attributed to extreme weather and climate events around the world between 2001 and 2010, the report adds, including extreme heat and cold spells, drought, severe storms and flooding events.

The number of deaths is 20 percent higher than the previous decade, largely due to heat waves in Europe and Russia (in 2003 and 2010, respectively), which spiked the number of heat-related deaths from 6,000 worldwide in 1991-2000 to about 136,000 in 2001-2010.
19-09-2015 11:47
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
To DKRTS,

Extracts from the WMO report that you neglected to mention.

"Many of these events and trends can be explained by the natural variability of the climate system. Rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, however, are also affecting the climate. Detecting the respective roles being played by climate variability and human- induced climate change is one of the key challenges facing researchers today".
"While the number of named storms in the North Atlantic basin exceeded previous averages, elsewhere "the frequency of cyclone activity was generally at average or below-average levels".

"However, no attempt is made to attribute the strength of such storms directly to global warming; elsewhere, the WMO acknowledges the need for better data over longer periods in order to distinguish natural variation from anthropogenic influence."
"While climate scientists believe that it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change, they increasingly conclude that many recent events would have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all – in the absence of climate change. For example, the likelihood of the 2003 European heatwave occurring was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures.

"No clear trend has been found in tropical cyclones and extra-tropical storms at the global level. More complete datasets will be needed in order to perform robust analyses of trends in the frequency and intensity of these hazards.

"Distinguishing between natural climate variability and human-induced climate change will also require datasets that are more complete and long-term. A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for detecting temperature changes.

"Assessing trends in extreme weather and climate events requires an even longer timeframe because, by definition, these events do not occur frequently. WMO's Commission for Climatology is currently addressing new approaches for the improved characterization, assessment and monitoring of these events. In addition, promising new research into the attribution of individual extreme events based on observational and model data is starting to emerge.

"Long-term cryosphere monitoring has emerged as an urgent priority, both for climate research and for understanding the practical implications of the widespread melting. There are still uncertainties with respect to the future evolution of icesheet melting. Understanding cryosphere variability will also help to improve sealevel rise projections, which, in turn, will contribute to more effective coastal planning and management".
"It is still not yet possible to make a definite link between the increase in the observed losses with an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme events. Other factors come into play, such as increased vulnerability and exposure of populations and the increase in the number of reports of disasters."
"On the other hand, there were fewer death due to storms and floods in 2001–2010 compared with 1991–2000 figures, with a decrease of 16 per cent and 43 per cent, respectively.

So DKRTS, it really depends on who cherry picks the data on whether it becomes alarming or not alarming at all. I also note that WMO constantly uses terms like "likely" (not highly likely) and "probably."

Thanks for pointing out this report, as now I feel even less alarmed than before.
19-09-2015 12:35
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
arthur18 wrote:
To DKRTS,

Extracts from the WMO report that you neglected to mention.

.....

So DKRTS, it really depends on who cherry picks the data on whether it becomes alarming or not alarming at all. I also note that WMO constantly uses terms like "likely" (not highly likely) and "probably."

Thanks for pointing out this report, as now I feel even less alarmed than before.


None of that makes any difference to my conclusions or those of the WMO or the WHO or the IPCC or every scientific professional society in the US (including the Petroleum Engineers!) or every major national scientific academy round the world or the overwhelming majority climate scientists.
20-09-2015 03:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
arthur18:

Even a low probability of a disastrous outcome should be taken seriously. For example, the chance of losing at Russian Roulette is only 1 in 6, but not many people would be happy to take that chance, even in return for a large sum of money.

Why makes you so content for us to play Russian Roulette with the climate?
20-09-2015 04:54
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
DKRTS and Surface Detail,

Don't worry guys, it's just a matter of time before people like myself and others who dare question bureaucracy will either be silenced or jailed and then you will have the world that you wished for and your children's children will be very happy as long as they accept everything they are told and never question anything. They will find out what's it like to live in today's China.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/19/climate-science-turned-monster/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/19/climate-alarmists-demand-obama-use-the-rico-act-to-silence-critics/

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-leap-manifesto-is-luthers-95-theses-for-the-climate-haunted

http://godfatherpolitics.com/14803/us-professor-lawrence-torcello-says-climate-change-skeptics-jailed/

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/08/080315-3.htm

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/03/29/gawkers-adam-weinstein-wants-to-put-you-in-jail-for-being-a-climate-change-denier/

http://yellowhammernews.com/business-2/alabama-connection-rfk-jr-thinks-global-warming-skeptics-jailed/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/06/03/execute-skeptics-shock-call-to-action-at-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers-shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now/

The governments of the world will turn your children's children into mindless robots well before the climate does any harm to them.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate 80 year moving average data:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Next year will the first year since lord knows when CO2 is more than 400 ppm all year at Moana Loa305-11-2019 18:15
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Year Long, Arctic Climate Change Study... How 'Green'?121-09-2019 03:46
The Data Mine28419-07-2019 04:56
Climate Data Gaps?125-06-2019 13:28
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact