Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 83

Thread: 2017's global temperatures

  1. #1
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,024
    Amen (Given)
    67
    Amen (Received)
    334

    2017's global temperatures

    We've had threads on tis in the past. Nobody's started one this time around, so I figured I would.

    Yesterday, NASA and NOAA released their analysis of the global temperatures in 2017. This was an interesting year, since it was first one after a strong El Niño, which has pushed temperatures up to a very dramatic record for two years in a row. Temperatures would be expected to drop, but the question was: by how much? Back to the temperatures typical of the early part of the decade? Or just down a little bit to near-record territory?

    The answer is the latter. NASA and NOAA place 2017 as the 2nd and 3rd warmest year on record, respectively. The differences come from whether the analysis uses the most up-to-date source data, and how it handles regions like the poles, where data is sparse compared to elsewhere. In either case, it's clear 2017 is roughly the same as 2015, which was an El Niño year and set a dramatic new record just two years ago.

    Berkeley Earth, which uses a completely different analytic approach, agrees and produced a nice graphic showing how 2017 is different from everything on record other than the last two years.

    Probability2017.jpg

    Another way to analyze this is to remove the effect of the El Niño. We have enough historic examples of how El Niño/La Niña strength correlates with global temperatures, and can use these to subtract the effect from the temperature data. That's been done with NASA/NOAA, and the results show that, when this adjustment is made, 2017 is actually the warmest year on record.

    2017_temp_briefing-7.jpg

    Over time, as the earth continues to warm, this will start to look like a "normal" year. But for now, it's clear that the last few years stand apart from anything anyone alive today has seen.

  2. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  3. #2
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    41,339
    Amen (Given)
    3884
    Amen (Received)
    19025
    so more adjusting of the data then?

  4. Amen Bill the Cat amen'd this post.
  5. #3
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,024
    Amen (Given)
    67
    Amen (Received)
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    so more adjusting of the data then?
    What are you referring to?

  6. #4
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    41,339
    Amen (Given)
    3884
    Amen (Received)
    19025
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    What are you referring to?
    "Another way to analyze this is to remove the effect of the El Niño. We have enough historic examples of how El Niño/La Niña strength correlates with global temperatures, and can use these to subtract the effect from the temperature data. That's been done with NASA/NOAA, and the results show that, when this adjustment is made, 2017 is actually the warmest year on record."

  7. #5
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,024
    Amen (Given)
    67
    Amen (Received)
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Sparko's post
    No. They performed their standard analysis to compute the global temperature; that's what the grey line represents.

    In addition, they performed a second analysis to determine how the presence and absence of a strong El Niño influenced global temperatures over the last few years. If you're not interested in the question, then you ignore the analysis and look at the global temperature calculation.

    In neither case was the underlying data adjusted. The data was just fed in to two different analysis pipelines.

    To draw an analogy: you have a genome DNA sequence. You can feed it into one analysis, and figure out where all the protein-coding genes are. You can feed it into another to find out where all the pieces of viruses are. They answer different questions, but they rely on the same underlying data and don't alter that data in any way.

  8. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  9. #6
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,677
    Amen (Given)
    137
    Amen (Received)
    1102
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    so more adjusting of the data then?
    hmm - me thinks you are implying that the processing of the raw data done by NASA (or whoever) is suspect, biased, and/or flawed.

    Would that be what you are actually trying to say?

    Jim
    Jorge's trueorigins paper: "...it is known that other volcanic features match what is usually associated with impact craters including ... shatter cones and crystal deformations"

    Planetary Science Institute: "Shatter cones … are found in only two places on Earth, 1) in nuclear test sites and 2) meteorite impact structures. They are formed as a result of the high pressure, high velocity shock wave ...

    maximum pressures from 45 to 200 times greater than found in volcanic events (2->20 Gpa)

  10. #7
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,696
    Amen (Given)
    6034
    Amen (Received)
    4616
    It SNOWED in Alabama! We had snow TWICE in one winter!!!


    I'm ready for the 'warmer' part...






























































    Sorry, couldn't resist.

  11. #8
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    41,540
    Amen (Given)
    911
    Amen (Received)
    15876
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    It SNOWED in Alabama! We had snow TWICE in one winter!!!


    I'm ready for the 'warmer' part...










    Sorry, couldn't resist.
    Same here in "Hotlanta"

    The first time we got about 15" (never seen that much here in over 44 years of living here) and it was powdery. We never get powdery snow. It's always at least half ice.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  12. Amen Teallaura amen'd this post.
  13. #9
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    12,696
    Amen (Given)
    6034
    Amen (Received)
    4616
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    hmm - me thinks you are implying that the processing of the raw data done by NASA (or whoever) is suspect, biased, and/or flawed.

    Would that be what you are actually trying to say?

    Jim
    He already answered, it's the omission that makes him question it.

    My field is Poli Sci - we deal with skews with weighting, rarely with omission. I understand it well enough to see why they might do it - just not well enough to ascertain validity. I can say that were it a paper I was analyzing, that omission would be the very first thing I'd examine for validity (methodology matters).

    To a layman (which I'm pretty danged close to being), omitting or weighting data sets off alarm bells - and it should because if something is wrong in the methodology, that's the most likely spot - and it does look suspicious when no account is given for the reasoning.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    ...

    To draw an analogy: you have a genome DNA sequence. You can feed it into one analysis, and figure out where all the protein-coding genes are. You can feed it into another to find out where all the pieces of viruses are. They answer different questions, but they rely on the same underlying data and don't alter that data in any way.
    Okay, you lost me. It looks (at a casual glance) like they are trying to compensate for a possible skew - which is a perfectly valid reason for the omission. But that's not analogous to an analysis - running a CBC and an RPR can be done on the same blood sample - but they are completely different analysis'. Sparky quoted a section stating they were omitting a part of the data from the analysis - not that they were running a separate statistical analysis (which wouldn't mention an omission of extraneous data).


  14. Amen Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  15. #10
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,677
    Amen (Given)
    137
    Amen (Received)
    1102
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    No. They performed their standard analysis to compute the global temperature; that's what the grey line represents.

    In addition, they performed a second analysis to determine how the presence and absence of a strong El Niño influenced global temperatures over the last few years. If you're not interested in the question, then you ignore the analysis and look at the global temperature calculation.

    In neither case was the underlying data adjusted. The data was just fed in to two different analysis pipelines.

    To draw an analogy: you have a genome DNA sequence. You can feed it into one analysis, and figure out where all the protein-coding genes are. You can feed it into another to find out where all the pieces of viruses are. They answer different questions, but they rely on the same underlying data and don't alter that data in any way.
    The raw data is adjusted. TOB, heat island effect, wild point editing, and so on. So it is not fair to say the results come solely from 'unaltered data'. From my studies, those adjustments make sense, are valI'd and even necessay to get an accurate result. And further, they don't change the general trend. That is, the averaged raw unadjusted data shows basically the same result. But those that have their doubts will see deception in the way you characterise the results relationship to the raw data.
    Jorge's trueorigins paper: "...it is known that other volcanic features match what is usually associated with impact craters including ... shatter cones and crystal deformations"

    Planetary Science Institute: "Shatter cones … are found in only two places on Earth, 1) in nuclear test sites and 2) meteorite impact structures. They are formed as a result of the high pressure, high velocity shock wave ...

    maximum pressures from 45 to 200 times greater than found in volcanic events (2->20 Gpa)

  16. Amen shunyadragon, Teallaura amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •