• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lewandowsky and Mann on Stifling Debate

Buzz said:
You didn't bypass anything. You included the 1997/98 El Nino data in the early trends and eliminated the 2015/16 El Nino in the later trends therefore completely biasing the comparisons you are making in favor of the denialist position.

You are doing exactly what you claim should not be done! And as far as I have seen you and your fellow denialists have been doing this repeatedly for years.
Click to expand...
By putting 2001 as the beginning and end point, the effects of the 1998 EL Nino had passed.
The complaint in the past is that people referenced the pause to a known El Nino high point in 1998,
which is true, but the same high point was also used by the alarmist to show rapid warming.
By ending the trend line on 2001, the temperatures have returned to the more basic trend.
 
longview said:
By putting 2001 as the beginning and end point, the effects of the 1998 EL Nino had passed.
The complaint in the past is that people referenced the pause to a known El Nino high point in 1998,
which is true, but the same high point was also used by the alarmist to show rapid warming.
By ending the trend line on 2001, the temperatures have returned to the more basic trend.
Click to expand...

Surely the warmth of the 1998 year will still be reflected in the trend line. Would a break before at 1997 and a resumption after, in 1999 not be better?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Surely the warmth of the 1998 year will still be reflected in the trend line. Would a break before at 1997 and a resumption after, in 1999 not be better?
Click to expand...
Yes, proper signal processing would eliminate the anomaly caused by the El Nino, but I am not sure that is within the capability
of the wood for trees site. I don't think there is enough time between 1998 and 2001 to have much of a trend.
I picked 2001 because it is a fairly neutral year not high, not low.
 
longview said:
Yes, proper signal processing would eliminate the anomaly caused by the El Nino, but I am not sure that is within the capability
of the wood for trees site. I don't think there is enough time between 1998 and 2001 to have much of a trend.
I picked 2001 because it is a fairly neutral year not high, not low.
Click to expand...

I think you are better at using that site than me so surely you could do a trend from start (what ever that was) to 1997 and then the next trend 1999 to 2014. I don't know if it would be scientifically better but it would be better from a layman's view. Better at eliminating 1998 that is.
 
Tim the plumber said:

I think you are better at using that site than me so surely you could do a trend from start (what ever that was) to 1997 and then the next trend 1999 to 2014. I don't know if it would be scientifically better but it would be better from a layman's view. Better at eliminating 1998 that is.
Click to expand...
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
I think it has some contamination from the 1998 period, one of the reasons I wanted to place the end point away from 1998.
 
longview said:
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
I think it has some contamination from the 1998 period, one of the reasons I wanted to place the end point away from 1998.
Click to expand...

Contamination?? I don't think Wood for Trees calculates trends that way. I could be wrong about that. At least you got the point I was making.(Thanks Tim)

Funny how the reduced warming rate goes away when you make a fair comparison.

And the one other point I would make is that removing the anomalous warmth of El Nino helps to hide the true rate of warming the planet is seeing.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
 
Buzz said:
Contamination?? I don't think Wood for Trees calculates trends that way. I could be wrong about that. At least you got the point I was making.(Thanks Tim)

Funny how the reduced warming rate goes away when you make a fair comparison.

And the one other point I would make is that removing the anomalous warmth of El Nino helps to hide the true rate of warming the planet is seeing.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Click to expand...
The El Nino warming is not part of the anthropological portion and should not be counted as such.
It is part of the difficulty in isolating the natural vs the man caused components of the warming.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Looking remarkably pause-less there.
Click to expand...
I think 2000 had residual effects from the El Nino cycle and was unusually low.
The temperature records are noisy, and wood for trees use a decimal dating system, that I have seen causes
unexpected results, (I think January and Oct, end up with the same data, say 1998.1 and 1998.10, still look like 1998.1)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom